30 ms·

That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content. These rules need to withstand changes t

That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content. These rules need to withstand changes that Congress might enact in the future. If Congress decides to force ISPs to block a certain kind of traffic, the FCC cannot disallow ISPs from blocking it with their rules. They basically just include the word 'lawful' to allow ISPs to block unlawful traffic. Think specifically of DDOS attacks, you wouldn't want to disallow an ISP from blackholing DDOS packets.

jrochkind1 12y ago
Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. Hey, it's obviously 'unlawful' right? We will see. Overall, I am very optimistic about this announcement.
- trjordan 12y ago
  Depends on how it's worded. If blocking lawful traffic is banned, then blocking a whole protocol that you don't know the contents of is unlawful. There might have to be some clarification around intent, but there are certainly many laws for which "I didn't think I was breaking the law" is an invalid defense.
- ddingus 12y ago
  Torrent traffic is lawful on a basic level. There are works being distributed via torrent that are intended to be there.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    I know that, and you know that. I'm not so sure about Comcast or Commissioner Wheeler. But potatolicious's comment about is good.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I know that, and you know that. I'm not so sure about Comcat or Commissioner Wheeler. Since FCC action against Comcast for blocking Bittorrent -- including the idea that Bittorrent, whatever unlawful content might be distributed by that means, was itself not unlawful and that Bittorrent traffic included lawful content -- was one of the starting points of net neutrality regulation at the FCC, I'm pretty sure that Wheeler, the FCC in general, and Comcast are all aware of that.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  I don't think that there is such a thing as an unlawful protocol.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  They might - some already do (block or throttle torrent traffic, that is). The difference is that right now if your ISP blocks torrent traffic you have literally no recourse besides going to a competitor (if one exists, which odds are one does not). You are after all not legally entitled to torrent traffic. The change here is that if an ISP unilaterally starts blocking torrent traffic, you (or more likely, the EFF or similar org) can sue to have torrent traffic declared lawful, after which the ISP is legally bound to open the traffic. The trick here isn't that ISP shitty behavior will be impossible under the new rules, but rather that there will be more power to the citizenry to combat many categories such shitty behavior.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. You do know that that's one of the earliest things the FCC addressed in the "net neutrality" / "open internet" space, even before the first attempt to adopt generally-applicable rules rather than case-by-case enforcement of net neutrality principles? https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.p...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content. Actually, once the FCC adopts a no-blocking-lawful-content rule, any alleged violation of that rule is potentially a subject of FCC action, which means that the FCC will, in the first instance, determine all relevant questions, including whether particular content is lawful. They will, of course, look at and apply court precedent and statute law to determine that, but the FCC absolutely will be called on to make that decision. Those decisions, of course, may be appealed to the court in the same way as any other enforcement action by a regulatory body.

jrochkind1 12y ago

Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. Hey, it's obviously 'unlawful' right? We will see. Overall, I am very optimistic about this announcement.

trjordan 12y ago
Depends on how it's worded. If blocking lawful traffic is banned, then blocking a whole protocol that you don't know the contents of is unlawful. There might have to be some clarification around intent, but there are certainly many laws for which "I didn't think I was breaking the law" is an invalid defense.
ddingus 12y ago
Torrent traffic is lawful on a basic level. There are works being distributed via torrent that are intended to be there.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  I know that, and you know that. I'm not so sure about Comcast or Commissioner Wheeler. But potatolicious's comment about is good.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I know that, and you know that. I'm not so sure about Comcat or Commissioner Wheeler. Since FCC action against Comcast for blocking Bittorrent -- including the idea that Bittorrent, whatever unlawful content might be distributed by that means, was itself not unlawful and that Bittorrent traffic included lawful content -- was one of the starting points of net neutrality regulation at the FCC, I'm pretty sure that Wheeler, the FCC in general, and Comcast are all aware of that.
Karunamon 12y ago
I don't think that there is such a thing as an unlawful protocol.
potatolicious 12y ago
They might - some already do (block or throttle torrent traffic, that is). The difference is that right now if your ISP blocks torrent traffic you have literally no recourse besides going to a competitor (if one exists, which odds are one does not). You are after all not legally entitled to torrent traffic. The change here is that if an ISP unilaterally starts blocking torrent traffic, you (or more likely, the EFF or similar org) can sue to have torrent traffic declared lawful, after which the ISP is legally bound to open the traffic. The trick here isn't that ISP shitty behavior will be impossible under the new rules, but rather that there will be more power to the citizenry to combat many categories such shitty behavior.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Right, but what we're worrying about is an ISP blocking, say, all torrent traffic. You do know that that's one of the earliest things the FCC addressed in the "net neutrality" / "open internet" space, even before the first attempt to adopt generally-applicable rules rather than case-by-case enforcement of net neutrality principles? https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.p...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> That's not a decision the FCC gets to make. Congress and the courts ultimately decide what is considered lawful content. Actually, once the FCC adopts a no-blocking-lawful-content rule, any alleged violation of that rule is potentially a subject of FCC action, which means that the FCC will, in the first instance, determine all relevant questions, including whether particular content is lawful. They will, of course, look at and apply court precedent and statute law to determine that, but the FCC absolutely will be called on to make that decision. Those decisions, of course, may be appealed to the court in the same way as any other enforcement action by a regulatory body.