3 ms·

One part I found particularly interesting: >In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that we should retain the definition of reasonable network management we prev

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-...

Spooky23 12y ago
That's why "reasonable practice" is there. FCC has the ability to interpret what reasonable is.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
That's what concerns me about the rules. It's kind of a bait and switch. First they say that it isn't permissible to block "lawful content", which is actually quite reasonable because it's hard to complain about something that blocks exclusively unlawful content. But then we get this insanity from the quoted portion above: "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity." Which is a total inversion of the principle. Instead of allowing blocking only when you're sure it's only blocking unlawful content, it's purporting to allow blocking of unspecified amounts of entirely lawful content as long as it's part of "reasonable" (whatever that means) efforts to address unlawful activity. It's a loophole you could fit a carrier battle group through.
coldpie 12y ago
The rules say they can't block lawful content. If the content is questionably lawful, then they won't block it, for fear of being found to have blocked lawful content.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Well, the fact that the whole effort to set up general net neutrality rules at the FCC started when their ruling against Comcast's BitTorrent blocking was struck down by the courts as outside of their case-by-case power without generally-applicable rules, I suspect the answer is that that would be a perfect example of what the present Commission, at least, would not find to be a reasonable effort to address unlawful content.

Spooky23 12y ago

That's why "reasonable practice" is there. FCC has the ability to interpret what reasonable is.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

That's what concerns me about the rules. It's kind of a bait and switch. First they say that it isn't permissible to block "lawful content", which is actually quite reasonable because it's hard to complain about something that blocks exclusively unlawful content. But then we get this insanity from the quoted portion above: "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity." Which is a total inversion of the principle. Instead of allowing blocking only when you're sure it's only blocking unlawful content, it's purporting to allow blocking of unspecified amounts of entirely lawful content as long as it's part of "reasonable" (whatever that means) efforts to address unlawful activity. It's a loophole you could fit a carrier battle group through.

coldpie 12y ago

The rules say they can't block lawful content. If the content is questionably lawful, then they won't block it, for fear of being found to have blocked lawful content.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Well, the fact that the whole effort to set up general net neutrality rules at the FCC started when their ruling against Comcast's BitTorrent blocking was struck down by the courts as outside of their case-by-case power without generally-applicable rules, I suspect the answer is that that would be a perfect example of what the present Commission, at least, would not find to be a reasonable effort to address unlawful content.