'NET NEUTRALITY' PASSES-FCC votes 3-2 to approve controversial Internet regulations

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

FCC votes 3-2 to approve controversial Internet regulations

By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 -- 1:07 pm


internet 1206 FCC votes 3 2 to approve controversial Internet regulations

By a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed controversial "net neutrality" rules aimed at prohibiting internet service providers (ISPs) from discriminating between Internet traffic.

Democratic Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps both voted with Chairman Julius Genachowski in favor of the new rules, despite saying they believed the Open Internet Order to be too weak.

Republican Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker voted against it.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/breaking-fcc-votes-32-approve-controversial-internet-regulations/

[DainBramaged]

1. MSNBC article

The FCC's three Democrats voted to pass the rules, while the two Republicans opposed them, arguing that they amount to unnecessary regulation. The new rules are likely to face intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill once Republicans take over the House. Meanwhile, public interest groups decried the regulations as too weak, particularly for wireless systems.

Known as "net neutrality," the rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, such as those from rivals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40768809

[meegbear]

4. Mitch McConnell's ranting about Obama "nationalizing" the internet ...

fucktard.

[DainBramaged]

6. The Republicans are like 5 year olds, if you don't keep them occupied

they throw a tantrum, then gorging themselves on junk food and TV until the next time they are bored.

[JackintheGreen]

9. I just did that for lunch!

How do they live with themselves? :puke:

[msongs]

2. they believed it was two weak yet voted for it anyway - government prostitutes serving their masters

[brooklynite]

3. So you're saying the Republicans are on "our" side now...

...having voted aginst it.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. The way this is written is confusing.

I found a much better explanation up at Cnet just now:

The new Net neutrality rules adopted Tuesday essentially creates two classes of service subject to different rules: One set of rules that applies to fixed broadband networks and one for wireless networks. The FCC says this is necessary because wireless networks are technologically different from fixed broadband networks.

The first rule requires both wireless and wireline providers to be transparent in how they manage and operate their networks.

The second Net neutrality rule prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet. The rule applies to both fixed wireline broadband network operators, as well as to wireless providers. But the stipulations for each type of network are slightly different.

For fixed broadband networks, operators cannot block any lawful content, services, applications, or devices on their network. Wireless providers area also prohibited from blocking all Websites, but the rule is slightly more lenient when it comes to blocking applications and services. The rule only prohibits these companies from blocking access to applications that specifically compete with a carrier's telephony voice or video services. In each case, the blocking rule also allows fixed and wireless broadband providers to reasonably manage their networks.

And finally, the last rule applies only to fixed broadband providers. It prohibits fixed wireline broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating against traffic on their network.

While he voted in favor of the new rules, Commissioner Copps said he is not entirely happy with the final outcome. In particular, he is concerned that broadband providers will force Internet companies to "pay for prioritization." This would create a fast lane on the public Internet for services that pay to have their traffic prioritized above other traffic, while all other Internet traffic travels in the slow lane. But Copps acknowledged that the "no unreasonable discrimination rule" should protect consumers against such abuses.


Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026283-266.html#ixzz18lx0vXwT

[Lochloosa]

7. Thanks dixiegrrrrl...much better explanation.

[KansDem]

8. This is "Partial Net Neutrality"

As was described on Democracy Now! this morning, this "protects" land-line access, but not wireless which is the way of the future for the Internet...

[EFerrari]

11. Exactly. n/t

[Lord Magus]

30. I fail to see how wireless is "the way of the future for the Internet"

[KansDem]

33. Amy Goodman's guest made that assessment: Craig Aaron of the media reform group Free Press

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/21/obama_flip_flop_fcc_vote_could

[ProudDad]

35. Because it's cheaper to build and maintain than "wired"

and therefore generates more profit...

Which is the ONLY thing that counts in the Corporate States of America...

[Lance_Boyle]

38. Yeah. Get back to me when you find all those wireless backbone providers. n/t

[ProudDad]

42. Who TF said anything about "backbone"???

Snarky, snarky...

[fatbuckel]

10. The beginning of the end...

[Dokkie]

14. tell me about it

I have never understood why Net neutrality became a democratic party platform, the net has worked perfectly well for most people (because no system is perfect and am sure someone where has serious problems with it). But now the FCC has extended its authority to regulation internet providers. All the people cheering this should remember that now that we have set a precedent, theres nothing stopping the next republican appointed FCC chairman from enacting policies that would in fact censor content.

There is nothing wrong with the internet as it is and with all the problems that needs fixing in this country, internet regulation should be the last thing on the agenda. I predict in 10yrs time this will turn out just as bad as NAFTA with all the outcry about how nobody could have seen it coming

[OhioChick]

15. Agreed n/t

[Dokkie]

17. this is embarrassing

but what does n/t mean? I tried google search but it that post makes little sense if n/t means "notice topic" as google suggested

[OhioChick]

21. n/t = No Text.

:)

[okieinpain]

22. but you have to admit the video streaming is a whole different

ball game when it comes to bandwidth.

[Dokkie]

23. oh yea

this is going to usher in a new era, an era where regular analog porn videos would be replaced by high bandwidth consuming, sharp picture, HD porn videos for the same price. I don't know why but I have a sick feeling that this will end up bitting us regular internet users in the butt. I have never understood why net neutrality is needed now. Also why is it fair to spread the cost of the bandwidth use around? we dont do it for other essential utilities like electricity, phone or water but somehow its ok for the internet

Anyway, we will see how this changes the internet, but i hope am wrong on this

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. Other utilities do charge different rates for different customers.

Electricity has a business rate.
In fact, there is now a customer rate that charges for different tiers of use. Kilowatt per hour use over a certain amount is charged at a higher rate.

Our water dept charges per gallon use.

Interestingly, you can negotiate the per line use per month with the phone company, but most people do not know that. I pay about 20.00 less a month for a no frills line than my neighbor does for the same service.

having said all that, I may have mis-understood your meaning.

[Dokkie]

28. thats my point

why is it ok to allow tier pricing on other more essential public utilities but not the internet. I think if you use more bandwidth then be prepared to pay more for it.

[alarimer]

29. I don't think that's the main concern with net neutrality.

It's one thing to charge people who use more bandwith higher prices. But the real reason we need net neutrality is to ensure that companies don't decide which services to allow on their network and which ones to disallow. Blocking YouTube in favor of their own company's proprietary video service etc. It would create these walled-off separate networks in which some people with one service provider would not be able to use Google Maps but would have to use the company's mapping service, which may not be as good or as reliable or whatever. OR be barred from using certain apps because they are from a competitor.

This I think is the real danger with the new rules. I prefer no rules at all actually because these new rule open the door for bad things. This is yet another example of the Obama administration caving in to corporate demands.

[Dokkie]

32. agree about having no rules at all

Apple right now restricts the app that can work on their devices and nothing about net neutrality would change that. Also how many people would continue using their ISP if it restricts/slows down DU or youtube? The market is doing a fantastic job regulating itself and I absolutely don't see any need for this net neutrality. Also the fact that google and verizon supports net neutrality makes me really nervous. And for comcast, if they weren't able to impose whatever policies we were afraid of the last 10yrs without any net neutrality or any laws in fact regulating the internet, maybe theres something (competition maybe) stopping them from doing so

[ProudDad]

37. You already do!!!

:shrug:

[ProudDad]

36. People already pay more for more bandwidth...

This sell-out has nothing to do with "bandwidth"... It has nothing to do with the CONNECTIONS TO the internet but everything to do with the speed of passage ON the internet...

For the first time the FCC (the govt.) has allowed the giant corporations that control the WIRES (and wireless) to establish multi-tiered speed of passage of information on the net -- according to who pays off..

This sell-out is on the transmission...the giant telcoms and cable companies will be allowed to restrict PASSAGE on the internet and allow fast service of packets for those who PAY OFF (large corpos and the porn merchants you seem so worried about) and slower service of packets for those who can't -- like Progressive websites and publications and DU... the rest of us...

[jayfish]

12. Garbage!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/why-everyone-hates-new-net-neutrality-ruleseven-nn-supporters.ars

They don't share Baker's default view of huge ISPs, which dominate the US landscape for wireline broadband, as cuddly companies who would like nothing better than to innovate and invest. And they're deeply disappointed that wireless companies are largely excluded from discrimination rules.

"No longer can you get to the same Internet via your mobile device as you can via your laptop," complained Free Press.

In addition, "paid prioritization" is not banned and "will allow broadband providers to set up a toll road for the largest Internet content and application companies to pay for prioritized access to consumers on the network," said Meinrath.

"Managed services" are still allowed over the last-mile broadband pipe, meaning that broadband operators can sell prioritized IP services of any kind. ("The new but not-yet-properly-defined 'managed service' exemption may amount to the first step down a slippery slope of non-neutral Internet services," said one complainant.)

The rules are full of loopholes and uncertainty (what's "reasonable," for instance?). And the rules continue to use Title I authority for all this regulation, despite the fact that this was dealt a severe blow earlier this year by a DC Court; backers worry that even these limited net neutrality rules will simply be tossed by judges.

[Hawkeye-X]

13. Watch EFF and ACLU slap a lawsuit against FCC

and make this completely unenforceable.

No way this should be even close to business friendly. It should be more geared towards to the people of the United States.

[boppers]

24. Would that be on the people's internet?

The one that was eliminated back in the 80's?

The current US internet was built by businesses, for businesses.

[bengalherder]

16. I don't care what bedfellows it takes

But we had better keep the internet free because it is where the next revolution (in thought, not physicality) is coming from.

[Dokkie]

18. But it has always been free

Just think of the mini revolutions and grassroot organisation that rise risen from the corporate controlled internet the last 6yrs

The Howard Dean campaign
The Obama Campaign
The Ron Paul campaign
The young turks
Thousand of other small and lesser know youtube political channels
cant think of others) etc

Most of these household names/events/companies were possibly solely due to the power of a free and unregulated internet. Dont fix( especially half assed measures) if it ain't broke.

[Plucketeer]

19. Just one more Ka-Ching

for what ought to be PUBLIC infrastructure.

[katty]

20. EFF will go after this

[Doctor_J]

25. "Paid Priority" means right wing garbage will race through, while truth

will be basically unavailable. It will be just like TV and radio and newspapers pretty soon - non-stop right-wing propaganda.

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. Which is why tv and radio and newspapers pretty much suck.

And why the internet is so valuable.
And of course "they" know that, so want to clog it up it up with garbage too.

And they will!!!

Why?
Because, as the guy at DISH told me when I discussed cutting our tv service, "most people will do anything
to KEEP their tvs hooked up.".

Usenet, anyone?

[melm00se]

31. will it survive a court challenge?

[ProudDad]

34. Republicans vote correctly for the wrong reasons...

They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't.

What the mainstream media isn't reporting net neutrality sell out

Dear Friend,

Today President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

This is the culmination of a long struggle, and it's important we discuss frankly what led to this point. So this will be a longer e-mail than we traditionally send, with some recommended action items at the end.

Despite what you may have read in the headlines, the rules passed by the FCC today amount to nothing more than a cynical ploy by Democrats to claim a victory on net neutrality while actually caving on real protections for consumers.

Make no mistake, AT&T lobbyists pre-approved this proposal, which means consumers lost and Big Telecom won.

Net neutrality is a principle that says that Internet users, not Internet service providers (ISPs), should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

Yet today the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content. And despite the fact that there is only one Internet, the rules also largely exempt cell phones and wireless devices from what meager protections the rules afford.

It's no exaggeration to say that this decision marks the beginning of the end for the Internet as we know it.

Senator Al Franken laid out what's at stake with this ruling, saying:

"The FCC's action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it's often the only choice for broadband."

So how did we get here? Just two years ago, net neutrality advocates were heartened by the election of a president who promised to defend net neutrality and appoint an FCC Chair who would do the same.

Initially, things looked good. After President Obama was inaugurated and after he appointed Chairman Genachowski to head the FCC, we had what we thought were three net neutrality supporters on the five-member commission and the support of the president. It seemed reasonable, therefore, to support the FCC in writing the net neutrality regulations that we needed.

But it was the FCC's unwillingness to undo a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband Internet providers that demonstrated how weak the Obama administration's support for net neutrality really was.

This Bush-era decision classified broadband Internet providers outside of the legal framework that traditionally applied to companies that offer two-way communication services

After a federal court ruled that unless the FCC reversed the Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband the FCC couldn't enforce net neutrality rules, Genachowski tested the waters with a proposal to reregulate (or in the jargon of the FCC "reclassify") broadband. Genachowski himself said that, according to the FCC General Counsel, pushing ahead with policies without reregulating broadband would be unwise given the tenuous legal footing the FCC would find itself in. In fact, Genachowski said:

"...continuing to pursue policies with respect to broadband Internet access has a serious risk of failure in court. It would involve a protracted, piecemeal approach to defending essential policy initiatives designed to protect consumers, promote competition, extend broadband to all Americans, pursue necessary public safety measures, and preserve the free and open Internet. The concern is that this path would lead the Commission straight back to its current uncertain situation-and years will have passed without actually implementing the key policies needed to improve broadband in America and enhance economic growth and broad opportunity for all Americans."

But the Chairman changed his tune after he unsurprisingly came under pressure from the telecom giants.

From what we can gather, one of the decisive moments came when 74 Democrats signed a letter to the FCC warning Genachowski not to reclassify broadband. The letter, which was promoted by telecom lobbyists, cleverly included language to support Congressional action to address the issue of net neutrality. But given that Congress was demonstrably beholden to the telecom lobbyists, and with the Republicans threatening the FCC outright, the subtext was clear. No FCC action on reclassification meant no viable chance to implement real net neutrality rules.

CREDO aggressively acted to hold these Democrats accountable for their letter. 119,096 of us signed petitions. We held in district meetings at the offices of 12 signers. But at that point it was too late. The damage had been done.

Chairman Genachowski was quickly cowed by political pressure and signaled an unwillingness to reclassify broadband. And rather than trying to give us net neutrality protections, he has instead sought to find a way of cynically passing something he can claim is net neutrality, when it's nothing of the sort.

We continued to fight and over the course of our campaign we submitted 158,702 public comments supporting real net neutrality. Our members made over 6,500 phone calls to the FCC. And sent 65,911 faxes to liberal FCC Commissioner Michael Copps in a last ditch attempt to get him to refuse to go along with Genachowski on his fake net neutrality proposal.

In the end, there is no way to paint this decision today as anything less than a defeat for net neutrality advocates and for our democracy.

The process demonstrated a breakdown in institutions of government that are supposed to safeguard the public interest and implement the will of the people. Here we have an example of a federal agency with the full power and authority to fulfill its mandate and protect the public interest, caving to nothing more than the withering stare of those they must regulate. The president said he supported net neutrality. There was no Republican filibuster holding us back. We simply needed the Chairman to propose real net neutrality rules that would hold up in a court of law, and we needed the three Democrats on the FCC to vote to pass them. It was that simple. And yet we failed to make it happen.

The lack of political will to confront the telecommunications giants effectively gave these oligarchic interests a veto over the rules that govern their behavior. In this way the narrow interests of a few powerful and wealthy corporations were prioritized over the public good and the literally millions of people who spoke out and demanded that the FCC protect our free and open Internet.

This is a clear example of industry capture of a regulatory body, and a damning indictment of government institutions that are supposed to regulate — not be run by — corporate interests.

Also let's remember that a free and open Internet is an important part of 21st Century democracy. By failing to protect it, this set of rulings is similar to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that tilted the realm of public discourse even more in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.

We have to be honest and share with you who have fought with us for real net neutrality a frank assessment of what just happened at the FCC. There is not right now a next step we can propose that will undo the damage that was done today to the free and open Internet.

But we will not simply lie down and give up. Here are four things you can do now to fight the corporate interests that gave birth to this situation we find ourselves in:

1) Read and share this blog post by our friends at Progressive Campaign Change Committee with three things everyone needs to know about Chairman Genachowski's fake net neutrality rules. huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/breaking-fcc-breaks-obama_b_799844.html

2) Tell the FCC to at least oppose the increased consolidation of our media by opposing the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Click here to take action.

3) Harry Reid's new chief of staff is a former telecom lobbyist and contributor to Republican causes. Tell Reid to fire him. Click here to take action.

4) Lastly, one senator fought to the end — Sen. Al Franken. Click here to join us in thanking him for standing up for net neutrality.

Thank you for continuing to fight.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

[No Elephants]

40. Thanks for the info.

[andym]

39. This is a classic freedom versus equality case

where government regulation lessens the freedom of the internet providers in order to provide more equal access for everyone.

Conservatives will hate it.

What they don't realize is that ensuring more equal access (less restricted by monetary fragmentation) it also increases individual freedom as well by making information more easy to obtain for everyone, and a more efficient system to boot. The same way the American interstate highway system promotes freedom to move ourselves and products throughout the USA, versus having to pay tolls on every private branch.


The rules the FCC passed are far more in this direction, than in the direction where there be a free-for-all free market approach to the internet.

[savalez]

41. Speaking of right wingers hating it...

This was interestingly funny:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/22/conservatives-net-neutrality/