FCC internet takeover just keeps looking worse and worse

[Victorious Secret]

While it is true that Tom Wheeler was a cable industry lobbyist, he ended his venture there before 1990, when the Internet went public.

 

Yup. 

 

Its getting real tiresome to keep seeing this garbage about how Wheeler was a former industry shill. The man left before the industry was even a thing. He's about as far removed from actually being a Comcast/ATT/Verizon slave as any one of us. 

 

But hey, misinformation by OP and sensationalist phrases. Thats the business of the business these days. 

[Nowak]

Yup. 

 

Its getting real tiresome to keep seeing this garbage about how Wheeler was a former industry shill. The man left before the industry was even a thing. He's about as far removed from actually being a Comcast/ATT/Verizon slave as any one of us. 

 

But hey, misinformation by OP and sensationalist phrases. Thats the business of the business these days. 

Speaking of sensationalist phrases, the title is pretty sensationalist as well. Unfortunately, sensationalism about the Internet will not end until the "ERMAHGERD FCC INTERNET TAKEOVER!!!! #TOMWHEELERLOBBYIST!!!1" people get what they want, net neutrality to be dead.

 

Because apparently giving the Internet to the ISPs is a much better alternative to all network traffic being treated the same. Why else would it be called net neutrality?

[Yoinkerman]

The issue that I see is that it doesn't include a statement that puts the burden of proof on the ISPs (from what I've seen)... "Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity."

 

I haven't read the full document, so it's possible that it's in there. But unless the ISPs have an obligation to PROVE they were reacting to some type of illegal activity, they can just use that as a hail Mary to block whatever the hell they please. "Why did you slow this user's connection down?" "Uhhhhhhhh TORRENTS. THEY WERE TORRENTING ILLEGAL STUFF. WE THINK..."

I fully agree that they should use their best efforts to protect copyrights, but we have all seen how ISPs can abuse loopholes for personal gain... Perfect example is throttling all streaming services aside from their own. "Oh, we thought they didn't have the copyright for random no-name show that no one is actually watching, so we throttled their traffic or blocked it completely."

 

Yes.  You make very valid points.  My point was that the something the ruling provides is better than the current open season.  A step in the right direction, if you will.  Not that it will absolutely fix things or there won't be loopholes.  

[nicklmg]

Yes.  You make very valid points.  My point was that the something the ruling provides is better than the current open season.  A step in the right direction, if you will.  Not that it will absolutely fix things or there won't be loopholes.  

Exactly. I think there should be regulation, I just don't think it should be left to the ISPs to enforce it 

[Memphaestus]

http://buzzpo.com/surprise-new-net-neutrality-regs-have-huge-loophole/

 

Gee, who would have thought government regulations, written by an ISP industry insider, would ever end up benefiting ISPs?

I'm sorry but that article is sensationalist bullshit.  I don't think they actually read the document, as it is explicitly clear, and isn't a loophole at all.

 

I point you to read sections 21, 23, and 32 of the document.

21. The bright-line bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization will go a long way to preserve the virtuous cycle. But not all the way. Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of technical and economic means, and without a catch-all standard, it would be that, as Benjamin Franklin said, “a little neglect may breed great mischief. Thus, the Order adopts the following standard:

 

Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

 

23. The Commission’s 2010 transparency rule, upheld by the Verizon court, remains in full effect: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.

 

32. Reasonable Network Management. As with the 2010 rules, this Order contains an exception for reasonable network management, which applies to all but the paid prioritization rule (which, by definition, is not a means of managing a network):

 

A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.

 

When it comes to throttling, that is only justified for "reasonable network management".  ISPs can, and always have been able to block unlawful content since the beginning of time, but they aren't required to do so unless law enforcement orders them to, or copyrights are being infringed and the owning company goes through the proper process to make a formal complaint or take down notice.  Now if the ISP in question, does block or throttle lawful content under the guise of unlawful, the defending party can make a complaint to the FCC through the proper channels, and in the end, the ISP will be fined.

 

I don't see where the fuss is, because this policy has been around forever and isn't changing anything.  If something is illegal to our court system, then it is illegal.  The FCC just had to be specifically clear that they were defending lawful content, because these regulations would be overruled by the courts if they defended unlawful content.

[ThomasD]

I'm sorry but that article is sensationalist bullshit.  I don't think they actually read the document, as it is explicitly clear, and isn't a loophole at all.

 

I point you to read sections 21, 23, and 32 of the document.

When it comes to throttling, that is only justified for "reasonable network management".  ISPs can, and always have been able to block unlawful content since the beginning of time, but they aren't required to do so unless law enforcement orders them to, or copyrights are being infringed and the owning company goes through the proper process to make a formal complaint or take down notice.  Now if the ISP in question, does block or throttle lawful content under the guise of unlawful, the defending party can make a complaint to the FCC through the proper channels, and in the end, the ISP will be fined.

 

I don't see where the fuss is, because this policy has been around forever and isn't changing anything.  If something is illegal to our court system, then it is illegal.  The FCC just had to be specifically clear that they were defending lawful content, because these regulations would be overruled by the courts if they defended unlawful content.

So, a regulatory effort ostensibly mounted to prevent ISP throttling effectively does nothing to change ISPs' ability to throttle...

 

Which only begs the question:  Then why bother to do it?