6 ms·

This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and

This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and what gets passed. As others have stated > will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?

pyre 12y ago
Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"
- oconnore 12y ago
  If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.
  - davorak 12y ago
    The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Not sure why it would be different in this case - the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.
      - davorak 12y ago
        > the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise. Sure but if the law is vague than the enforcement can be broad or narrow depending on case law and the interpretation of judges. It is less risky to run a business in an area where the law is more clear cut.
    - Retra 12y ago
      I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. They're the ones doing the blocking, and if they block the wrong stuff, they're the ones going to court.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. More likely, it would be their burden to do so after blocking, when a violation of the no-blocking-lawful-content rule was alleged.
  - pyre 12y ago
    Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)? I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      Since regulation would apply to mobile data, traffic to the Uber app could be blocked.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.
      - pyre 12y ago
        This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?" It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules. It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or without a third-party request, to block unlawful content. Of course, because it is a federal rule, any local request seeking to block unlawful content that would also (or actually) block lawful content would be preempted by the federal rule prohibiting blocking lawful content, so it would constrain the kinds of actions that could be taken in pursuit of blocking unlawful content. But, in any case, any ability cities would have under this rule to request blocking Uber, etc., would be no more ability than they have without the rule.
  - geofft 12y ago
    I had trouble understanding this comment at first, I think you're comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "no net neutrality required by law" (i.e., status quo), whereas the comment thread is, I think, comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "net neutrality under an even stronger rule that does not have an exception for unlawful content". That said, I'm really curious how preemption plays into this. For instance, if federal law is silent on the selling of some particular thing, and local law says that selling that thing is a crime, and there's a federal law that e.g. makes it a crime to interfere with "lawful" interstate commerce, and I interfere with you selling that thing, did I commit a federal crime? I can see arguments both ways that make sense to me as a layman, but I'm sure there's a standard answer to this.
- djur 12y ago
  Probably not. It would be an exceptional deviation from existing understanding of the First Amendment, to put it lightly. The cases where blocking speech is permitted in the US involve distributing material that is illegal to possess or distribute (stuff distributed in violation of copyright, for instance). In the case of Uber, what might be illegal is purchasing service from them (or them selling it to you). Them telling you about their service, even if it's illegal in your jurisdiction, is protected speech. Cannabis is currently illegal to possess or purchase in my state (although not for long). It's still legal for me to read High Times or websites selling commercial products that are legal in Colorado. It'd be illegal for me to place an order. (And if it's permitted under the proposed regulatory environment, it's probably permitted now, too.)
randomfool 12y ago
Will this ban blocking of tethering?
- spb 12y ago
  Blocking of tethering was already banned, it just isn't enforced that carriers must provide tethering.
  - rsingel 12y ago
    That's not true. The only carrier banned from blocking tethering is Verizon -- and that applies only to phones using the C Block spectrum. That's because when the FCC sold that spectrum it came with strong net neutrality rules attached (e.g. open devices, use any app, etc.)
    - dzdt 12y ago
      Despite the supposed ban, Verizon DOES block tethering. Source: I am a Verizon customer.
metaphorm 12y ago
this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.
- obsurveyor 12y ago
  Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.
  - metaphorm 12y ago
    1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. 2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in congress now that has a veto proof majority. 3. there is immense popular support for net neutrality and any action taken by congress against it is likely to lead to immediate and intense political pressure on those members of congress. lets not forget this country is still a democracy (mostly). the congressional representatives act against public interest at their own peril.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.
      - slowmovintarget 12y ago
        The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs. The recent moves have been lobbyist-inspired, though. Sad.
andrewfong 12y ago
In this context, "lawful" is probably intended to refer to categories of content than any particular instance. That is, it leaves the door open for blocking known categories of unlawful content like child porn, pirated software, malware, and maybe spam. Depending on implementation, this could definitely be problematic -- e.g. will Comcast interpret this as carte blanche to block BitTorrent if the majority of BitTorrent use is unlawful? But it's still a huge net gain for startups, most of which fall safely on the lawful side of the line.
- wooter 12y ago
  definitely not a gain for start ups considering the legal climate towards things like ride share. > In this context, "lawful" is probably... If I've learned anything about law and politics, its that you can practically toss the context. If it can be twisted, it will be twisted more ways than you can imagine. Something like 90+% of "terrorist" surveillance usage is used for non-violent drug crime and they don't even have to disclose it (if you really push, they'll give you 'parallel reconstruction'). I'm sure at one point, someone in DC said something along the lines of "We will only prevent terrorist activity" (where terrorist is at least related to terrorism... probably...)

pyre 12y ago

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

oconnore 12y ago
If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.
- davorak 12y ago
  The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Not sure why it would be different in this case - the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.
    - davorak 12y ago
      > the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise. Sure but if the law is vague than the enforcement can be broad or narrow depending on case law and the interpretation of judges. It is less risky to run a business in an area where the law is more clear cut.
  - Retra 12y ago
    I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. They're the ones doing the blocking, and if they block the wrong stuff, they're the ones going to court.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. More likely, it would be their burden to do so after blocking, when a violation of the no-blocking-lawful-content rule was alleged.
- pyre 12y ago
  Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)? I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Since regulation would apply to mobile data, traffic to the Uber app could be blocked.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.
    - pyre 12y ago
      This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?" It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules. It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or without a third-party request, to block unlawful content. Of course, because it is a federal rule, any local request seeking to block unlawful content that would also (or actually) block lawful content would be preempted by the federal rule prohibiting blocking lawful content, so it would constrain the kinds of actions that could be taken in pursuit of blocking unlawful content. But, in any case, any ability cities would have under this rule to request blocking Uber, etc., would be no more ability than they have without the rule.
- geofft 12y ago
  I had trouble understanding this comment at first, I think you're comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "no net neutrality required by law" (i.e., status quo), whereas the comment thread is, I think, comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "net neutrality under an even stronger rule that does not have an exception for unlawful content". That said, I'm really curious how preemption plays into this. For instance, if federal law is silent on the selling of some particular thing, and local law says that selling that thing is a crime, and there's a federal law that e.g. makes it a crime to interfere with "lawful" interstate commerce, and I interfere with you selling that thing, did I commit a federal crime? I can see arguments both ways that make sense to me as a layman, but I'm sure there's a standard answer to this.
djur 12y ago
Probably not. It would be an exceptional deviation from existing understanding of the First Amendment, to put it lightly. The cases where blocking speech is permitted in the US involve distributing material that is illegal to possess or distribute (stuff distributed in violation of copyright, for instance). In the case of Uber, what might be illegal is purchasing service from them (or them selling it to you). Them telling you about their service, even if it's illegal in your jurisdiction, is protected speech. Cannabis is currently illegal to possess or purchase in my state (although not for long). It's still legal for me to read High Times or websites selling commercial products that are legal in Colorado. It'd be illegal for me to place an order. (And if it's permitted under the proposed regulatory environment, it's probably permitted now, too.)

randomfool 12y ago

Will this ban blocking of tethering?

spb 12y ago
Blocking of tethering was already banned, it just isn't enforced that carriers must provide tethering.
- rsingel 12y ago
  That's not true. The only carrier banned from blocking tethering is Verizon -- and that applies only to phones using the C Block spectrum. That's because when the FCC sold that spectrum it came with strong net neutrality rules attached (e.g. open devices, use any app, etc.)
  - dzdt 12y ago
    Despite the supposed ban, Verizon DOES block tethering. Source: I am a Verizon customer.

metaphorm 12y ago

this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.

obsurveyor 12y ago
Congress can gut FCC's power to decide these things though, that's what the Republicans want.
- metaphorm 12y ago
  1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. 2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in congress now that has a veto proof majority. 3. there is immense popular support for net neutrality and any action taken by congress against it is likely to lead to immediate and intense political pressure on those members of congress. lets not forget this country is still a democracy (mostly). the congressional representatives act against public interest at their own peril.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines. There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.
    - slowmovintarget 12y ago
      The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs. The recent moves have been lobbyist-inspired, though. Sad.

andrewfong 12y ago

In this context, "lawful" is probably intended to refer to categories of content than any particular instance. That is, it leaves the door open for blocking known categories of unlawful content like child porn, pirated software, malware, and maybe spam. Depending on implementation, this could definitely be problematic -- e.g. will Comcast interpret this as carte blanche to block BitTorrent if the majority of BitTorrent use is unlawful? But it's still a huge net gain for startups, most of which fall safely on the lawful side of the line.

wooter 12y ago
definitely not a gain for start ups considering the legal climate towards things like ride share. > In this context, "lawful" is probably... If I've learned anything about law and politics, its that you can practically toss the context. If it can be twisted, it will be twisted more ways than you can imagine. Something like 90+% of "terrorist" surveillance usage is used for non-violent drug crime and they don't even have to disclose it (if you really push, they'll give you 'parallel reconstruction'). I'm sure at one point, someone in DC said something along the lines of "We will only prevent terrorist activity" (where terrorist is at least related to terrorism... probably...)