15 ms·

FCC Releases Open Internet Order

191 points by revscat 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago
Going to have to withhold judgement on this document until better minds have their time with it. While I agree with rule that providers may not establish preference with regards to content I am mostly concerned with the idea it takes four hundred pages to document this requirement.
- tzs 12y ago
  It takes 8 pages. See Appendix A, which is the actual rules. All the rest is commentary, analysis, historical background, and something like 80 pages of dissents by the Republican Commissioners.
vlan0 12y ago
I saw so many people complaining about how this would increase taxes. Yet, the full details of the ruling had yet to be seen by the public. Now they can eat their words. 37. "Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax moratorium."
- neonhomer 12y ago
  It won't be taxes, it will be the ISP's that raise rates.
  - wmf 12y ago
    I don't know why this was voted down. If ISPs are not allowed to double-bill or drop packets, it's likely that they will increase prices (or not increase speed while keeping prices the same, which amounts to an increase over what it should be).
    - wtallis 12y ago
      Who said anything about not letting ISPs drop packets?
  - ejain 12y ago
    a.k.a "regulatory recovery fees". On the other hand, if an ISP felt they could charge more, why aren't they doing so already? It's not like this is a competitive market with low profit margins...
- sigzero 12y ago
  They say that "now". They have their foot in the door now so I wouldn't hold too much to that statement.
eck 12y ago
> 30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. TLDR: Relax, Comcast. You can still intentionally let all your transit ports saturate every evening so Netflix will blow unless they pay you to peer. Which is what you really wanted to do.
- madanosliw 12y ago
  But Netflix (or their service provider) probably should be paying to peer. The problem is that Comcast is also in the media game so they have an incentive to use the peering as leverage against a competitor. An ISP should be able to make technical decisions on how they connect to other networks. Unfortunately the big oligopo-ISPs make those technical decisions based on desires other than having an optimal network.
  - fixxer 12y ago
    excellent point and a reason why, despite my libertarian leanings, i am happy to see regulation here.
  - eck 12y ago
    My point is that they ban explicit prioritization yet ISPs can achieve the exact same result through network topology. It's a huge loophole. Put another way, if I pay Comcast for XX mbps, it should be possible for some company to send me data at XX mbps without paying Comcast. Otherwise what exactly am I paying for? One solution would be to force last-mile ISPs to designate a location for each customer (for example "all Manhattan subscribers => 60 Hudson St") where Netflix etc could peer without settlement only with those customers. Comcast doesn't have to carry Netflix's traffic across the country, just from the nearest IX to the customer. If the customer monthly fees don't cover that, what exactly are they paying for? Any VOD offerings from Comcast would be required to routed through the same points, without routing preference over 3rd party traffic like Netflix. In some sense, that would be a light version of forced cable leasing, since instead of movies, a service could offer a vpn/tunnel to general internet access with better transit provisioning than the last-mile ISP.
tubbs 12y ago
Here's the portion about unlawful content I was waiting for (page 132m para. 304), with the parts I found especially interesting italicized: "In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as a reasonable practice.782 We affirm this tentative conclusion and re-state that open Internet rules do not prohibit broadband providers from making reasonable efforts to address the transfer of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content to ensure that open Internet rules are not used as a shield to enable unlawful activity or to deter prompt action against such activity. For example, the no-blocking rule should not be invoked to protect copyright infringement, which has adverse consequences for the economy, nor should it protect child pornography. We reiterate that our rules do not alter the copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright infringement.783 After consideration of the record, we retain this rule, which is applicable to both fixed and mobile broadband providers engaged in broadband Internet access service and reads as follows: Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity. 305. Some commenters contend that this rule promotes the widespread use of intrusive packet inspection technologies by broadband providers to filter objectionable content and that such monitoring poses a threat to customers’ privacy rights.784 Certainly, many broadband providers have the technical tools to conduct deep packet inspection of unencrypted traffic on their networks,785 and consumer privacy is a paramount concern in the Internet age. Nevertheless, we believe that broadband monitoring concerns are adequately addressed by the rules we adopt today, so we decline to alter this provision. This rule is limited to protecting “reasonable efforts . . . to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”786 We retain the discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of broadband providers’ practices under this rule on a case-by-case basis. Consumers also have many tools at their disposal to protect their privacy against deep packet inspection—including SSL encryption, virtual private networks, and routing methods like TOR.787 Further, the complaint processes we adopt today add to these technical methods and advance consumer interests in this area.788"
- nickodell 12y ago
  One part I found particularly interesting: >In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as a reasonable practice. What about cases where an ISP can't tell? For example, if a user is using encrypted BitTorrent, could an ISP block it on the basis that 89% of files on BitTorrent are illegal? [1] [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-...
sschueller 12y ago
The phrase "lawful content" occurs 32 times. "No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices." So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com, wikileaks or any content congress deems unlawful. Couldn't these new rules be applied to the Chinese internet and nothing would change? The great firewall only filters what is not lawful.
- xyzzyz 12y ago
  > So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com or any content congress deems unlawful. Yes, but it's hardly surprising. The point of the FCC net neutrality rules is not to protect Americans from the censorship by US government -- FCC simply has no power to do that. These rules are there to protect Americans from the censorship by ISP companies.
  - tubbs 12y ago
    How "lawful content" is determined and how liberal they are at blocking is the real question. Obviously sites like thepiratebay.se will be censored, but how about, say, torrentfreaks? I continue to believe that none of this will be an issue if we continue to push encryption.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      > Obviously sites like thepiratebay.se will be censored What? No they won't. Comcast/Verizon/No one is going to block sites for their customers on the Internet. They don't today, and they won't tomorrow. Except child porn. That shit gets blocked and will continue to get blocked, regularly. But that's about it.
      - dublinben 12y ago
        >That shit gets blocked and will continue to get blocked Does it? I'm unaware of any legally binding or ISP level blocking of this sort in the US.
emeraldd 12y ago
Any chance someone could fix the title? It should be FCC shouldn't it?
- dang 12y ago
  Thanks! (Submitted title was "FFC publishes full Net Neutrality rules".)
oh_sigh 12y ago
*FCC
adelevie 12y ago
I put together some quick and dirty scripts for searching the text of the Order: https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-order https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-order.
petecooper 12y ago
>FFC published full Net Neutrality rules [pdf] Typo in title: FFC should be FCC.
supergeek133 12y ago
Oh thank god, all I've been asking for is to read this. BRB.
rektide 12y ago
Are the dissenting opinions available? The FCC delayed this release, declaring that they were obligated to respond to dissenters and that they were going to hold off releasing until dissenters had written up their opinions and they could prepare a rebuttal. (This strikes me as a surprisingly sensible, all-cards-on-the-table governance model, rather than an ongoing media-frenzy feeding blow-by-blow release.) It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google's discussion, we'll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to "Broadband Internet Access Services" it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, "Broadband Subscriber Access Services." Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/?mt=1426176998774 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules... To me it comes off as a denigration of the public by the FCC and Google, and the scant evidence about is hard to interpret as anything but subterfuge and sabotage done at the very last minute. A more transparent process would have been appreciated- rather than this "Government as a Service" model of building regulations and applying them, I'd like to have seen the FCC use some transparency and openness in their creation of these regulations to bootstrap regulations better meeting the public mandate. I expect most registered, official dissent is going to focus on the FCC doing too much, and that no one is going to dissent saying these protections fail to address core points. But gee do I want to know what was in the 15 "Broadband Subscriber Access Services" pages the FCC dropped at the last minute, and why Google lobbied to drop them.
- adelevie 12y ago
  > Are the dissenting opinions available? Yes. Keep scrolling :)
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    Applies not just to this thread, and virtually every HN thread ever, but all comment section threads anywhere on the Internet.
dang 12y ago
Url changed from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
0x09 12y ago
This part sounds neat > Section 254: Promoting Universal Broadband. Section 254 promotes the deployment and availability of communications networks to all Americans, including rural and low-income Americans—furthering our goals of more and better broadband. The FCC has been running pilots related to this under the existing Lifeline program, but nothing has materialized yet. Seems they're taking seriously the U.N. report that regarded Internet access as a basic human right. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-pilot-program http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-pilot-p...
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Note that the FCC recently redefined "broadband" to >=25Mbps. Note that the term "broadband" has largely disappeared in last-mile ISP advertising. (I briefly talked to AT&T about it a la "I signed up for broadband, but am not getting anywhere close to 25Mbps", rep got vague about what was promised.) This all may provide interesting consequences. By redefining, suddenly large swaths of the country which have & are generally satisfied with 3-20Mbps connections are suddenly "without broadband" and subject to renewed FCC bureaucratic campaigns to bring them out of such third-world conditions.
arh68 12y ago
Today we include packet loss as a necessary part of the network performance disclosure. Interesting! Wireless carriers could definitely compete on that.. The 2014 Open Internet NPRM tentatively concluded that we should require that broadband providers disclose meaningful information regarding the source, location, timing, speed, packet loss, and duration of network congestion. As discussed above, we continue to require disclosure of actual network speed and latency (as in 2010), and also require disclosure of packet loss. We decline at this time to require disclosure of the source, location, timing, or duration of network congestion, noting that congestion may originate beyond the broadband provider’s network and the limitations of a broadband provider’s knowledge of some of these performance characteristics.
grellas 12y ago
U.S. law fundamentally rests on the idea of checks and balances and a division of power so that no one person or body can easily enact or execute laws that are against the interests of the people. The legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch laws executes them, and the judicial branch interprets them. In the modern era, when a law requires complex administration, its enactment by the legislative branch does not end the process of defining what the law will be and how it will function. For any complex area, an administrative body is set up to implement and administer the law in its details. That means appointing bureaucrats who take the broad mandate of the law and give it life by applying it to the countless details that actually affect people's lives. So, the tax laws specify broad enactments saying that people must pay income taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes, etc. But the IRS exists to give those laws life and to promulgate a mountain of regulations that tell us when this is that item constitutes an item of income or a deductible expense or an exemption from this or that, etc., etc. Of course, under the way that U.S. law works, any such agency must be given full authority to exercise discretion to give reasonable interpretations to whatever legislative enactments set up the statutory authority under which it functions. At the same time, the power of the agency is strictly limited to working within that statutory authority. Within its bounds, the agency has vast powers; outside its bounds, it can do nothing. Thus, the essence of administrative law is the idea of reasonable discretion to promulgate and enforce regulations to see that the law's underlying purposes are fulfilled. The power of the bureaucrats who make such regulations is enormous, as long as they stay within their bounds. And courts routinely accept this. So long as the regulations adopted by the bureaucrats are deemed to be within their bounds, and not deemed to be acting arbitrarily or capriciously or without rational basis, the courts defer to the bureaucratic judgment and uphold whatever they do. And so we now have the FCC of "we will censor this and that" and of "we will revoke your license for this or that" fame being entrusted with broad powers to regulate the internet, powers that could be legally used to do all sorts of things deemed abhorrent and restrictive of freedom but as to which the agency assures us it will use voluntary restraint in exercising. This, I believe, is hardly a sure foundation upon which to base a long-term hope of assuring a free and open internet. I do believe, given the political climate, that it will be a short-term solution for guaranteeing "net neutrality," whatever that means exactly. But, in our federal system, amid the various ways the idea of net neutrality might have been won and protected, the worst imaginable way from a conceptual standpoint is to say that internet freedom can best be guaranteed by giving broad discretionary power to bureaucrats to do what they will within the nebulous confines of a communications act enacted 80 years ago that did not even contemplate modern technology as we now know it. This is the very act that has been most characterized for decades now by an orgy of lobbying by one competitive group or interest or another to gain this or that advantage over others and whose crowning glory appears to rest in a mountain of endless litigation over what this or that may mean in the act. I have purposely framed the above comments with multiple "this or that" references because that is the whole idea behind a nebulous bureaucratic framework: it can morph and shift in ways scarcely imaginable as time passes, as vested interests mount campaigns for their pet issues, and things get carved up by insiders with the nominal aim of protecting consumers but with the normal goal of carving up the booty for those who have the biggest stakes in the process. Even in this thread (and many others like it), we already see vigorous debates over the meaning of this or that interpretation and of the motives behind them. This is all deemed safe for the moment because it is discussing an issue over which people are passionate, an issue which is right before us, and an issue over which each of us believes we have sound reasoning that ought to be adopted in the current debate. But take that same process, extend it to a whole range of issues that the FCC might now address, add to the mix the vigorous energies of everybody and his uncle who has a stake in getting this or that competitive advantage on the issue, and then toss it to the courts to sort out who is right, well, you then have a lethal brew that in my view leaves us vulnerable to future abuse that is hardly trivial but affects the very essence of how a free and open internet ought to function. Remember, you always believe the "good guys" will be in charge. But give enough unrestricted power to any governmental agency with very few checks on that power and the "bad guys" may then run wild with what you have done, much to your chagrin. I realize this is a very unpopular position in this forum. But it has to be said. I truly hope I am wrong in my concerns.
remarkEon 12y ago
For the sake of not reading things in a vacuum, linked is the Verizon v. FCC opinion for further context. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93...
supergeek133 12y ago
Situational/real world situation comment. Take the scenario where Comcast never allowed HBO Go access on PS3 and more recently PS4. Do these rules apply to that? That's the kind of stuff real consumers are interested in.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  That was due to a DNSSEC misconfiguration, it had nothing to do with net neutrality. The misconfiguration affected android devices as well.
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    I wasn't aware that was the issue. I was under the impression it was a business decision by Comcast.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    You seem to be mistaking the newly launched HBO Now for the existing HBO Go service. Comcast continues to block the latter on certain devices, even for paying customers.
- Splendor 12y ago
  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Comcast "blocking" access to HBO Go has anything to do with net neutrality. In that case Comcast is saying that the HBO cable subscription they sell doesn't include HBO Go access. This is possible because of the requirement to "authenticate" your HBO Go access through your cable/satellite provider. So that has more to do with television than internet regulation IMO.
  - supergeek133 12y ago
    But it does, on PC. Just not PS4 and PS3. I can login to HBO GO with my Comcast account on PC just fine, always have been able to.
    - 12y ago
Rhapso 12y ago
mirror: http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63YiJi9jzg4P9Gzc7/FCC-15-24A1.pdf http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63Y...
ForHackernews 12y ago
So where are all the people who in the last thread[0] were so very concerned that the FCC was "hiding" the rules? Are you satisfied? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976
jamiesonbecker 12y ago
Dissenting Opinions: FCC Chairman Pai: http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5 http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5 FCC Chairman O'Rielly: http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6 http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6
freeasinfree 12y ago
Pai's dissent touched on a point no one I've talked to has considered: the hundreds of tiny carriers--mostly WISPs--across the US who might/will be affected by this. They can barely compete against big telco and cable as is.
- wmf 12y ago
  Brett Glass has written quite a bit about the WISP perspective, but my interpretation is that WISP networks are so limited that they can only compete if they lie about either their speeds or about how much of the Internet they're providing access to. I don't want competition that bad.
Randgalt 12y ago
These are the rules today. Another FCC on another day will change the rules. 400 pages will become 4000. There is no end to this. It's a sad day.
- rubbingalcohol 12y ago
  The "free market" failed when telco companies started flexing their monopoly muscle to punish their competitors. In the U.S. we have a rich history of regulating monopolies, and these companies brought it on themselves with their inability to behave like good corporate citizens. "Free markets" should be limited when they obstruct the liberty of the majority of the public or limit competition on a massive scale. This creates deadweight loss which is an economic net negative. Imagine if, six months after moving to a new house, your electricity bill doubled because you were no longer in the "promotional period." Your electric company claims there's a free market, because you're free to install solar panels. Comcast et. al are no different than other local monopolies. Their claims of providing a "vibrant and innovative" broadband market are laughable when you look at the far superior state of broadband in other countries. The cable companies were acting like a cartel of corporate thugs, they openly defied the government's ability to do anything about it, and they got served a massive dish of justice. All because the people spoke out and pushed the government to act in their interest. This is a great moment for American activism and democracy.
  - Randgalt 12y ago
    The Cable Cos have a government granted monopoly. No free market there. The simplest solution is to eliminate this monopoly.
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > 400 pages will become 4000. The actual rules aren't even close to 400 pages. The 400 pages consist of the legal justification, the whys and hows, and dissents. The actual rules are seven pages.
  - Randgalt 12y ago

191 points by revscat 12y ago

Going to have to withhold judgement on this document until better minds have their time with it. While I agree with rule that providers may not establish preference with regards to content I am mostly concerned with the idea it takes four hundred pages to document this requirement.

tzs 12y ago
It takes 8 pages. See Appendix A, which is the actual rules. All the rest is commentary, analysis, historical background, and something like 80 pages of dissents by the Republican Commissioners.

vlan0 12y ago

I saw so many people complaining about how this would increase taxes. Yet, the full details of the ruling had yet to be seen by the public. Now they can eat their words. 37. "Nor will our actions result in the imposition of any new federal taxes or fees; the ability of states to impose fees on broadband is already limited by the congressional Internet tax moratorium."

neonhomer 12y ago
It won't be taxes, it will be the ISP's that raise rates.
- wmf 12y ago
  I don't know why this was voted down. If ISPs are not allowed to double-bill or drop packets, it's likely that they will increase prices (or not increase speed while keeping prices the same, which amounts to an increase over what it should be).
  - wtallis 12y ago
    Who said anything about not letting ISPs drop packets?
- ejain 12y ago
  a.k.a "regulatory recovery fees". On the other hand, if an ISP felt they could charge more, why aren't they doing so already? It's not like this is a competitive market with low profit margins...
sigzero 12y ago
They say that "now". They have their foot in the door now so I wouldn't hold too much to that statement.

eck 12y ago

> 30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. TLDR: Relax, Comcast. You can still intentionally let all your transit ports saturate every evening so Netflix will blow unless they pay you to peer. Which is what you really wanted to do.

madanosliw 12y ago
But Netflix (or their service provider) probably should be paying to peer. The problem is that Comcast is also in the media game so they have an incentive to use the peering as leverage against a competitor. An ISP should be able to make technical decisions on how they connect to other networks. Unfortunately the big oligopo-ISPs make those technical decisions based on desires other than having an optimal network.
- fixxer 12y ago
  excellent point and a reason why, despite my libertarian leanings, i am happy to see regulation here.
- eck 12y ago
  My point is that they ban explicit prioritization yet ISPs can achieve the exact same result through network topology. It's a huge loophole. Put another way, if I pay Comcast for XX mbps, it should be possible for some company to send me data at XX mbps without paying Comcast. Otherwise what exactly am I paying for? One solution would be to force last-mile ISPs to designate a location for each customer (for example "all Manhattan subscribers => 60 Hudson St") where Netflix etc could peer without settlement only with those customers. Comcast doesn't have to carry Netflix's traffic across the country, just from the nearest IX to the customer. If the customer monthly fees don't cover that, what exactly are they paying for? Any VOD offerings from Comcast would be required to routed through the same points, without routing preference over 3rd party traffic like Netflix. In some sense, that would be a light version of forced cable leasing, since instead of movies, a service could offer a vpn/tunnel to general internet access with better transit provisioning than the last-mile ISP.

tubbs 12y ago

Here's the portion about unlawful content I was waiting for (page 132m para. 304), with the parts I found especially interesting italicized: "In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as a reasonable practice.782 We affirm this tentative conclusion and re-state that open Internet rules do not prohibit broadband providers from making reasonable efforts to address the transfer of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content to ensure that open Internet rules are not used as a shield to enable unlawful activity or to deter prompt action against such activity. For example, the no-blocking rule should not be invoked to protect copyright infringement, which has adverse consequences for the economy, nor should it protect child pornography. We reiterate that our rules do not alter the copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright infringement.783 After consideration of the record, we retain this rule, which is applicable to both fixed and mobile broadband providers engaged in broadband Internet access service and reads as follows: Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity. 305. Some commenters contend that this rule promotes the widespread use of intrusive packet inspection technologies by broadband providers to filter objectionable content and that such monitoring poses a threat to customers’ privacy rights.784 Certainly, many broadband providers have the technical tools to conduct deep packet inspection of unencrypted traffic on their networks,785 and consumer privacy is a paramount concern in the Internet age. Nevertheless, we believe that broadband monitoring concerns are adequately addressed by the rules we adopt today, so we decline to alter this provision. This rule is limited to protecting “reasonable efforts . . . to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.”786 We retain the discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of broadband providers’ practices under this rule on a case-by-case basis. Consumers also have many tools at their disposal to protect their privacy against deep packet inspection—including SSL encryption, virtual private networks, and routing methods like TOR.787 Further, the complaint processes we adopt today add to these technical methods and advance consumer interests in this area.788"

nickodell 12y ago
One part I found particularly interesting: >In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we previously adopted, which does not include preventing transfer of unlawful content or the unlawful transfer of content as a reasonable practice. What about cases where an ISP can't tell? For example, if a user is using encrypted BitTorrent, could an ISP block it on the basis that 89% of files on BitTorrent are illegal? [1] [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-...

sschueller 12y ago

The phrase "lawful content" occurs 32 times. "No-Blocking. First, we adopt a bright-line rule prohibiting broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices." So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com, wikileaks or any content congress deems unlawful. Couldn't these new rules be applied to the Chinese internet and nothing would change? The great firewall only filters what is not lawful.

xyzzyz 12y ago
> So I guess that means they can block thepiratebay.com or any content congress deems unlawful. Yes, but it's hardly surprising. The point of the FCC net neutrality rules is not to protect Americans from the censorship by US government -- FCC simply has no power to do that. These rules are there to protect Americans from the censorship by ISP companies.
- tubbs 12y ago
  How "lawful content" is determined and how liberal they are at blocking is the real question. Obviously sites like thepiratebay.se will be censored, but how about, say, torrentfreaks? I continue to believe that none of this will be an issue if we continue to push encryption.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    > Obviously sites like thepiratebay.se will be censored What? No they won't. Comcast/Verizon/No one is going to block sites for their customers on the Internet. They don't today, and they won't tomorrow. Except child porn. That shit gets blocked and will continue to get blocked, regularly. But that's about it.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      >That shit gets blocked and will continue to get blocked Does it? I'm unaware of any legally binding or ISP level blocking of this sort in the US.

emeraldd 12y ago

Any chance someone could fix the title? It should be FCC shouldn't it?

dang 12y ago
Thanks! (Submitted title was "FFC publishes full Net Neutrality rules".)

oh_sigh 12y ago

*FCC

adelevie 12y ago

I put together some quick and dirty scripts for searching the text of the Order: https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-order https://github.com/adelevie/open-internet-order.

petecooper 12y ago

>FFC published full Net Neutrality rules [pdf] Typo in title: FFC should be FCC.

supergeek133 12y ago

Oh thank god, all I've been asking for is to read this. BRB.

rektide 12y ago

Are the dissenting opinions available? The FCC delayed this release, declaring that they were obligated to respond to dissenters and that they were going to hold off releasing until dissenters had written up their opinions and they could prepare a rebuttal. (This strikes me as a surprisingly sensible, all-cards-on-the-table governance model, rather than an ongoing media-frenzy feeding blow-by-blow release.) It pains me greatly knowing that Google worked hard to get a piece of this document dropped. Alas due to a lack of transparency and openness among the FCC and Google's discussion, we'll never have more than faint rumormongering to do here, but in tandem to "Broadband Internet Access Services" it seemed like there was to be another leg of openness, "Broadband Subscriber Access Services." Google not only got to know what was being proposed but got to get it dropped before the public had any idea what was under consideration here. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules/?mt=1426176998774 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/26/net_neutrality_rules... To me it comes off as a denigration of the public by the FCC and Google, and the scant evidence about is hard to interpret as anything but subterfuge and sabotage done at the very last minute. A more transparent process would have been appreciated- rather than this "Government as a Service" model of building regulations and applying them, I'd like to have seen the FCC use some transparency and openness in their creation of these regulations to bootstrap regulations better meeting the public mandate. I expect most registered, official dissent is going to focus on the FCC doing too much, and that no one is going to dissent saying these protections fail to address core points. But gee do I want to know what was in the 15 "Broadband Subscriber Access Services" pages the FCC dropped at the last minute, and why Google lobbied to drop them.

adelevie 12y ago
> Are the dissenting opinions available? Yes. Keep scrolling :)
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  Applies not just to this thread, and virtually every HN thread ever, but all comment section threads anywhere on the Internet.

dang 12y ago

Url changed from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9191125.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

0x09 12y ago

This part sounds neat > Section 254: Promoting Universal Broadband. Section 254 promotes the deployment and availability of communications networks to all Americans, including rural and low-income Americans—furthering our goals of more and better broadband. The FCC has been running pilots related to this under the existing Lifeline program, but nothing has materialized yet. Seems they're taking seriously the U.N. report that regarded Internet access as a basic human right. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-pilot-program http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-income-broadband-pilot-p...

ctdonath 12y ago
Note that the FCC recently redefined "broadband" to >=25Mbps. Note that the term "broadband" has largely disappeared in last-mile ISP advertising. (I briefly talked to AT&T about it a la "I signed up for broadband, but am not getting anywhere close to 25Mbps", rep got vague about what was promised.) This all may provide interesting consequences. By redefining, suddenly large swaths of the country which have & are generally satisfied with 3-20Mbps connections are suddenly "without broadband" and subject to renewed FCC bureaucratic campaigns to bring them out of such third-world conditions.

arh68 12y ago

Today we include packet loss as a necessary part of the network performance disclosure. Interesting! Wireless carriers could definitely compete on that.. The 2014 Open Internet NPRM tentatively concluded that we should require that broadband providers disclose meaningful information regarding the source, location, timing, speed, packet loss, and duration of network congestion. As discussed above, we continue to require disclosure of actual network speed and latency (as in 2010), and also require disclosure of packet loss. We decline at this time to require disclosure of the source, location, timing, or duration of network congestion, noting that congestion may originate beyond the broadband provider’s network and the limitations of a broadband provider’s knowledge of some of these performance characteristics.

grellas 12y ago

U.S. law fundamentally rests on the idea of checks and balances and a division of power so that no one person or body can easily enact or execute laws that are against the interests of the people. The legislative branch enacts laws, the executive branch laws executes them, and the judicial branch interprets them. In the modern era, when a law requires complex administration, its enactment by the legislative branch does not end the process of defining what the law will be and how it will function. For any complex area, an administrative body is set up to implement and administer the law in its details. That means appointing bureaucrats who take the broad mandate of the law and give it life by applying it to the countless details that actually affect people's lives. So, the tax laws specify broad enactments saying that people must pay income taxes, estate taxes, excise taxes, etc. But the IRS exists to give those laws life and to promulgate a mountain of regulations that tell us when this is that item constitutes an item of income or a deductible expense or an exemption from this or that, etc., etc. Of course, under the way that U.S. law works, any such agency must be given full authority to exercise discretion to give reasonable interpretations to whatever legislative enactments set up the statutory authority under which it functions. At the same time, the power of the agency is strictly limited to working within that statutory authority. Within its bounds, the agency has vast powers; outside its bounds, it can do nothing. Thus, the essence of administrative law is the idea of reasonable discretion to promulgate and enforce regulations to see that the law's underlying purposes are fulfilled. The power of the bureaucrats who make such regulations is enormous, as long as they stay within their bounds. And courts routinely accept this. So long as the regulations adopted by the bureaucrats are deemed to be within their bounds, and not deemed to be acting arbitrarily or capriciously or without rational basis, the courts defer to the bureaucratic judgment and uphold whatever they do. And so we now have the FCC of "we will censor this and that" and of "we will revoke your license for this or that" fame being entrusted with broad powers to regulate the internet, powers that could be legally used to do all sorts of things deemed abhorrent and restrictive of freedom but as to which the agency assures us it will use voluntary restraint in exercising. This, I believe, is hardly a sure foundation upon which to base a long-term hope of assuring a free and open internet. I do believe, given the political climate, that it will be a short-term solution for guaranteeing "net neutrality," whatever that means exactly. But, in our federal system, amid the various ways the idea of net neutrality might have been won and protected, the worst imaginable way from a conceptual standpoint is to say that internet freedom can best be guaranteed by giving broad discretionary power to bureaucrats to do what they will within the nebulous confines of a communications act enacted 80 years ago that did not even contemplate modern technology as we now know it. This is the very act that has been most characterized for decades now by an orgy of lobbying by one competitive group or interest or another to gain this or that advantage over others and whose crowning glory appears to rest in a mountain of endless litigation over what this or that may mean in the act. I have purposely framed the above comments with multiple "this or that" references because that is the whole idea behind a nebulous bureaucratic framework: it can morph and shift in ways scarcely imaginable as time passes, as vested interests mount campaigns for their pet issues, and things get carved up by insiders with the nominal aim of protecting consumers but with the normal goal of carving up the booty for those who have the biggest stakes in the process. Even in this thread (and many others like it), we already see vigorous debates over the meaning of this or that interpretation and of the motives behind them. This is all deemed safe for the moment because it is discussing an issue over which people are passionate, an issue which is right before us, and an issue over which each of us believes we have sound reasoning that ought to be adopted in the current debate. But take that same process, extend it to a whole range of issues that the FCC might now address, add to the mix the vigorous energies of everybody and his uncle who has a stake in getting this or that competitive advantage on the issue, and then toss it to the courts to sort out who is right, well, you then have a lethal brew that in my view leaves us vulnerable to future abuse that is hardly trivial but affects the very essence of how a free and open internet ought to function. Remember, you always believe the "good guys" will be in charge. But give enough unrestricted power to any governmental agency with very few checks on that power and the "bad guys" may then run wild with what you have done, much to your chagrin. I realize this is a very unpopular position in this forum. But it has to be said. I truly hope I am wrong in my concerns.

remarkEon 12y ago

For the sake of not reading things in a vacuum, linked is the Verizon v. FCC opinion for further context. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/$file/11-1355-1474943.pdf http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D93...

supergeek133 12y ago

Situational/real world situation comment. Take the scenario where Comcast never allowed HBO Go access on PS3 and more recently PS4. Do these rules apply to that? That's the kind of stuff real consumers are interested in.

Igglyboo 12y ago
That was due to a DNSSEC misconfiguration, it had nothing to do with net neutrality. The misconfiguration affected android devices as well.
- supergeek133 12y ago
  I wasn't aware that was the issue. I was under the impression it was a business decision by Comcast.
- dublinben 12y ago
  You seem to be mistaking the newly launched HBO Now for the existing HBO Go service. Comcast continues to block the latter on certain devices, even for paying customers.
Splendor 12y ago
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Comcast "blocking" access to HBO Go has anything to do with net neutrality. In that case Comcast is saying that the HBO cable subscription they sell doesn't include HBO Go access. This is possible because of the requirement to "authenticate" your HBO Go access through your cable/satellite provider. So that has more to do with television than internet regulation IMO.
- supergeek133 12y ago
  But it does, on PC. Just not PS4 and PS3. I can login to HBO GO with my Comcast account on PC just fine, always have been able to.
  - 12y ago

Rhapso 12y ago

mirror: http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63YiJi9jzg4P9Gzc7/FCC-15-24A1.pdf http://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNRGTQjo6FGjD3JHZUrDsqwxucCz63Y...

ForHackernews 12y ago

So where are all the people who in the last thread[0] were so very concerned that the FCC was "hiding" the rules? Are you satisfied? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113976

jamiesonbecker 12y ago

Dissenting Opinions: FCC Chairman Pai: http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5 http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a5 FCC Chairman O'Rielly: http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6 http://www.fcc.gov/article/fcc-15-24a6

freeasinfree 12y ago

Pai's dissent touched on a point no one I've talked to has considered: the hundreds of tiny carriers--mostly WISPs--across the US who might/will be affected by this. They can barely compete against big telco and cable as is.

wmf 12y ago
Brett Glass has written quite a bit about the WISP perspective, but my interpretation is that WISP networks are so limited that they can only compete if they lie about either their speeds or about how much of the Internet they're providing access to. I don't want competition that bad.

Randgalt 12y ago

These are the rules today. Another FCC on another day will change the rules. 400 pages will become 4000. There is no end to this. It's a sad day.

rubbingalcohol 12y ago
The "free market" failed when telco companies started flexing their monopoly muscle to punish their competitors. In the U.S. we have a rich history of regulating monopolies, and these companies brought it on themselves with their inability to behave like good corporate citizens. "Free markets" should be limited when they obstruct the liberty of the majority of the public or limit competition on a massive scale. This creates deadweight loss which is an economic net negative. Imagine if, six months after moving to a new house, your electricity bill doubled because you were no longer in the "promotional period." Your electric company claims there's a free market, because you're free to install solar panels. Comcast et. al are no different than other local monopolies. Their claims of providing a "vibrant and innovative" broadband market are laughable when you look at the far superior state of broadband in other countries. The cable companies were acting like a cartel of corporate thugs, they openly defied the government's ability to do anything about it, and they got served a massive dish of justice. All because the people spoke out and pushed the government to act in their interest. This is a great moment for American activism and democracy.
- Randgalt 12y ago
  The Cable Cos have a government granted monopoly. No free market there. The simplest solution is to eliminate this monopoly.
Amezarak 12y ago
> 400 pages will become 4000. The actual rules aren't even close to 400 pages. The 400 pages consist of the legal justification, the whys and hows, and dissents. The actual rules are seven pages.
- Randgalt 12y ago