1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Net Neutrality Success

Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by OnFlySEO, Feb 26, 2015.

  1. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
    FCC Passes Strongest Net Neutrality Rules In America's History

    FCC.jpg

    The open internet finally got the protection it deserves from profit-hungry cable companies. The FCC just approved the strongest set of net neutrality rules in this country's history, punctuating a years-long battle for this future of the internet. However, the war's not yet over.

    The new rules largely resemble the open internet rules that Obama laid out three months ago. They forbid paid prioritization?the practice that enables cable companies to create internet "fast lanes"?as well as throttling. The new rules do not allow internet service providers to block websites and give the FCC authority to intervene when big cable companies don't act in the public interest.


    In a nutshell, this plan lets the FCC regulate the internet as a public utility, much like telephones. The plan does not give the government the power to set the price of internet service.


    This is all fantastic news, and it's news we've been waiting years to hear. However, the next battle for the future of the internet will happen in America's courtrooms and possibly in Congress as well. Several cable companies have already expressed intentions to sue the FCC over the rules, and those cases could drag out for years. These court cases are particularly dangerous. In 2011, a Verizon lawsuit led to a judge overruling the FCC's old net neutrality rules.


    But for now, these are the rules that internet experts agree are the best way to preserve net neutrality. This is the outcome that America deserves.

    Source - Gizmodo


     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  2. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2016
  3. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    9,454
    If only there was this much hype on the rip off people are facing from having to upgrade to business class internet that is sometimes $300 more per month for same speeds.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
    Companies over charging or charging more then we think they should is one thing, I can deal with that because it's their company, their service and their right to charge what they want, however, the right to visit the sites "I Want" to visit is another situation, that in my belief isn't something to be mandated by my ISP, I'll pay for the service but not if they'll be telling me where and where I can't go. The Net Neutrality success is a big deal and am happy it went through.
     
  5. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    9,454
    More competition would have prevented that as well. If Company A is slowing down Netflix but Companies B and C that a person can get don't slow netflix then company A will be "forced" to not slow down netflix
     
  6. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
    So, you don't support Net Neutrality? You don't believe that a students blog just be just as responsive as NetFlix? You believe that corporations should have better response times and a faster connections just because they have deeper pockets?

    I believe in a leveled playing field where all service providers and companies have a fair chance of success, you don't want to stifle the potential of start ups and innovation.
     
  7. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    9,454
    A students blog isn't going to draw much bandwidth and wouldn't need to setup a special deal. The whole issue was about stopping ISP's from making bandwidth hogs pay to not be throttled.
     
  8. RosuC

    RosuC Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    112
    Location:
    Spain
    Home Page:
  9. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
    As stated by President Obama:

    Obama s Plan to Save the Internet.png
     
  10. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    9,454
    And what does his obviously "Sky is falling" false claim have to do with it?
     
  11. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
    False claim? To which "claim" are you referring?
     
  12. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    9,454
    That a some high schooler's blog is going to be throttled. Its total bs, the ISP's were concerned about the data being used by sites like Youtube,Netflix, Hulu etc. that use insane amount of bandwidth.
     
  13. tiyowan

    tiyowan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    137
    I'm really glad to see this. I had a wonderful time when I was studying in the States, but some of the things there drove me nuts. *ahem* Comcast.
     
  14. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52
    Comcast, ATT, Time Warner, they all have their ups & downs, no company is perfect and no company is going to offer their service(s) at a price point everyone will be happy with.
     
  15. LakeForest

    LakeForest Supreme Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    Location:
    Location Location
    I'm waiting to see what's actually in the rules. I want to be happy and excited for this, but there has to be some sort of catch.
     
  16. OnFlySEO

    OnFlySEO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    52

    Here you go:

    Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open Internet


    Chairman Wheeler is proposing clear, sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open
    Internet as a place for innovation and free expression. His common-sense proposal would replace,
    strengthen and supplement FCC rules struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
    Columbia Circuit more than one year ago. The draft Order supports these new rules with a firm legal
    foundation built to withstand future challenges. The Chairman?s comprehensive proposal will be voted on
    the FCC?s February 26 open meeting.


    Consumers and Innovators Need an Open Internet


    An open Internet allows consumers to access the legal content and applications that they choose online,
    without interference from their broadband network provider. It fosters innovation and competition by
    ensuring that new products and services developed by entrepreneurs aren?t blocked or throttled by
    Internet service providers putting their own profits above the public interest. An open Internet allows free
    expression to blossom without fear of an Internet provider acting as a gatekeeper. And it gives innovators
    predictable rules of the road to deliver new products and services online.


    Legal Authority: Reclassifying Broadband Internet Access under Title II


    The Chairman?s proposal provides the strongest legal foundation for the Open Internet rules by relying on
    multiple sources of authority: Title II of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996. In doing so, the proposal provides the broad legal certainty required
    for rules guaranteeing an open Internet, while refraining (or ?forbearing?) from enforcing provisions of
    Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. Together Title II and Section 706 support clear
    rules of the road, providing the certainty needed for innovators and investors, and the competitive choices
    and freedom demanded by consumers.


    First,

    the Chairman?s proposal would reclassify ?broadband Internet access service??that?s the
    retail broadband service Americans buy from cable, phone, and wireless providers?as a
    telecommunications service under Title II. We believe that this step addresses any limitations that
    past classification decisions placed on our ability to adopt strong Open Internet rules, as
    interpreted by the D.C. Circuit in the Verizon case last year. But just in case, we also make clear
    that if a court finds that it is necessary to classify the service that broadband providers make
    available to ?edge providers,? it too is a Title II telecommunications service. (To be clear, this is
    not a ?hybrid?? both the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under
    Title II.)


    Second,

    the proposal finds further grounding in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996. Notably, the Verizon court held that Section 706 is an independent grant of authority to the
    Commission that supports adoption of Open Internet rules. Using it here?without the limitations
    of the common carriage prohibition that flowed from earlier classification decisions?bolsters the
    Commission?s authority.

    Third,

    provisions on mobile broadband also rest on Title III of the Communications Act. Among
    other things, the draft Order persuasively rebuts claims that Title III does not allow classification
    of mobile broadband as a telecommunications service.


    Finally,

    Title II?s ?just and reasonable? standard and the Verizon court?s finding that Section 706
    authorizes the FCC to protect the ?virtuous circle? of network innovation and infrastructure
    development provide standards for the FCC to protect Internet openness against new tactics that
    would close the Internet.


    New Rules to Protect an Open Internet


    While the FCC?s 2010 open Internet rules had limited applicability to mobile broadband, the new rules ?
    in their entirety ? would apply to mobile broadband, recognizing advances in technology and the growing
    significance of wireless broadband access in recent years. Today, 55 percent of Internet traffic is carried
    over wireless networks. This proposal extends protection to consumers no matter how they access the
    Internet, whether they on their desktop computer or their mobile devices.


    Bright Line Rules: The first three rules would ban practices that are known to harm the Open Internet:


    No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services,
    or non-harmful devices.


    No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the
    basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.


    No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over
    other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration ? in other words, no ?fast lanes.? This rule also
    bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.


    A Standard for Future Conduct: Because the Internet is always growing and changing, there must be a
    known standard by which to determine whether new practices are appropriate or not. Thus, the proposal
    would create a general Open Internet conduct standard that ISPs cannot harm consumers or edge
    providers.


    Greater Transparency:

    The rules described above would restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet. But the Chairman?s proposal alsorecognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem. The proposalenhances existing transparency rules, which were not struck down by the court.Reasonable Network Management: For the purposes of the rules, other than paid prioritization, an ISP
    may engage in reasonable network management. This recognizes the need of broadband providers to manage the technical and engineering aspects of their networks.

    In assessing reasonable network management, the Commission?s proposed standard would take
    account of the particular engineering attributes of the technology involved?whether it be fiber,
    DSL, cable, unlicensed wireless, mobile, or another network medium.
    ï‚· However, the network practice must be primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate
    network management?and not commercial?purpose. For example, a provider can?t cite
    reasonable network management to justify reneging on its promise to supply a customer with
    ?unlimited? data.


    Broad Protection


    Some data services do not go over the public Internet, and therefore are not ?broadband Internet access?
    services subject to Title II oversight (VoIP from a cable system is an example, as is a dedicated heartmonitoring
    service). The Chairman?s proposal will ensure these services do not undermine the
    effectiveness of the open Internet rules. Moreover, broadband providers? transparency disclosures will
    continue to cover any offering of such non-Internet data services ?ensuring that the public and the
    Commission can keep a close eye on any tactics that could undermine the Open Internet rules. 3
    Interconnection: New Authority to Address Complaints About ISPs? Practices
    For the first time the Commission would have authority to hear complaints and take appropriate
    enforcement action if necessary, if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and
    reasonable, thus allowing it to address issues that may arise in the exchange of traffic between massmarket
    broadband providers and edge providers.


    Forbearance


    Congress requires the FCC to refrain from enforcing ? forbear from ? provisions of the Communications
    Act that are not in the public interest. The proposed Order applies some key provisions of Title II, and
    forbears from most others. There is no need for any further proceedings before the forbearance is
    adopted. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice
    networks for over twenty years.


    Major Provisions of Title II that the Order WILL APPLY:


    - The proposed Order applies ?core? provisions of Title II: Sections 201 and 202 (e.g., no
    ?unjust and unreasonable practices?


    - Allows investigation of consumer complaints under section 208 and related enforcement
    provisions, specifically sections 206, 207, 209, 216 and 217


    - Protects consumer privacy under Section 222


    - Ensures fair access to poles and conduits under Section 224, which would boost the
    deployment of new broadband networks


    - Protects people with disabilities under Sections 225 and 255


    - Bolsters universal service fund support for broadband service in the future through partial
    application of Section 254.


    Major Provisions Subject to Forbearance:


    - Rate regulation: the Order makes clear that broadband providers shall not be subject to
    tariffs or other form of rate approval, unbundling, or other forms of utility regulation


    - Universal Service Contributions: the Order DOES NOT require broadband providers to
    contribute to the Universal Service Fund under Section 254

    - The Order will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees ? there will be
    no automatic Universal Service fees applied and the congressional moratorium on
    Internet taxation applies to broadband.


    Fostering Investment and Competition


    All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve
    incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, Chairman Wheeler?s proposal will
    modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, encouraging Internet Service Providers to invest in the
    networks American increasingly rely on.


    The proposed order does not include utility-style rate regulation:


    - No rate regulation or tariffs
    - No last-mile unbundling
    - No burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards.


    A Case Study: Investment in the Wireless Industry


    For 21 years the wireless industry has been governed by Title II-based rules that forbear from traditional
    phone company regulation. The wireless industry has invested over $400 billion under similar rules,
    proving that modernized Title II regulation can support investment and competition.


    Fewer provisions will apply to ISPs than were applied to wireless carriers.


    When Title II was first applied to mobile, voice was the predominant mobile service. During the period
    between 1993 and 2009, carriers invested heavily, including more than $270 billion in building out their
    wireless networks, an increase of nearly 2,000%.


    ?FCC?
     
  17. randybishop

    randybishop Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,921
    Likes Received:
    794
    Occupation:
    I was born a poor black child
    Location:
    Mississippi
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  18. Capo Dei Capi

    Capo Dei Capi BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    9,454
    This is perhaps even better than keeping net neutrality since more competition lowers prices and increases speed.