FCC Releases Net Neutrality Rules

[aaronspink]

And nothing in these facts says the FCC can not make rules it will be voting on public before they actually vote on them, so basically you post seems to point us to the possibility that the only reason it's been made public now is because they had to submit it to Congress anyways, and members of Congress would have gladly made it public.

Actually, it can't. As part of the rule making process as defined by Congress, every publishing of a proposed rule making as stringent requirements. If the FCC posed the exact text of the rules being voted on, that would require the whole process to start again. As such it would basically result in a never ending loop. Hence the process used by the FCC and that has been used by the FCC for decades.

 

[aaronspink]

No, the ones you choose to ignore, as for misrepresenting, when comments post that the proposal should have been made puublic before the vote you start yapping about them publishing the final approved regulation.

None of the defenses you have sprewed out have addressed the the issue, which is the FCC being able, but refusing, to release the proposal before it was voted on.

The FCC is technically unable to do what you want due to congressional mandate dating back almost 100 years. Find another talking point please.

 

[kydsid]

Thanks c0mad0r, it looks pretty good so far.

Has anyone found any particular bad parts yet?

No, it's is basically what they published as the proposed rule in 2014.

 

[sliverjazz]

it says the service ISP's provide does not fall under free speech.

so they can require ISP's disclose all kinds of info, and they can be shut down with no regard for the first amendment

 

[ICOM]

Paying a couple bucks more a month to ensure my traffic isn't being fucked around with? Sure.

Why not.

Oh...but the poor super ultra capitalists of planet corporate greed and corruption. What will they do? Will somebody think of the poor corporate scumbags!!!

 

[Jagger100]

But what does the ITFA have to do with this rule? Even if this rule gets defeated ITFA doesn't have to be extended.

Since the ITFA expires in less than a year, taxers just have to be patient. Aside from just renaming fees.

 

[mesyn191]

Yep, if you can't deal with facts switch to insults, very mature.

He gave facts and was responded to with BS handwaving that smacks of political obstinacy. A few insults are perfectly legit under those circumstances.

There is a HUGE difference between releasing final ruling and releasing what is being discussed and put up for a vote.

You can arm chair theory craft a situation where this would be true but in reality the final ruling will almost perfect mirror what has been released as is typical under these circumstances. The FCC and the Net Neutrality issue are highly politicized. By the time anything goes public its already been hammered out and decided behind closed doors.

 

[cptnjarhead]

Actually, it can't. As part of the rule making process as defined by Congress, every publishing of a proposed rule making as stringent requirements. If the FCC posed the exact text of the rules being voted on, that would require the whole process to start again. As such it would basically result in a never ending loop. Hence the process used by the FCC and that has been used by the FCC for decades.

Actually they can, they have the right to disclose or not.
FCC rule § 19.735–203

(a) Except as authorized in writing
by the Chairman pursuant to para-
graph (b) of this section, or otherwise
as authorized by the Commission or its
rules, nonpublic information shall not
be disclosed, directly or indirectly, to
any person outside the Commission

 

[cptnjarhead]

§ 19.735–203... and this

(b) An employee engaged in outside
teaching, lecturing, or writing shall
not use nonpublic information obtained
as a result of his Government employ-
ment in connection with such teaching,
lecturing, or writing except when the
Chairman gives written authorization
for the use of that nonpublic informa-
tion on the basis that its use is in the
public interest

 

[kydsid]

You are incorrectly applying 47CFR 19.735. That regulation is purposed for employee conduct in conjunction with 5CFR 2635.

Even if you weren't an agency head always has the authority to release information unless restricted by other legislation or rule. Please review the Administrative Procedures Act for reference.

 

[cptnjarhead]

You are incorrectly applying 47CFR 19.735. That regulation is purposed for employee conduct in conjunction with 5CFR 2635.

Even if you weren't an agency head always has the authority to release information unless restricted by other legislation or rule. Please review the Administrative Procedures Act for reference.

My reference is the same reference made by, Fred Upton (Chairman House Committee on Energy and Commerce), John Thune (Chairman Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Greg Walden (Chairman Subcommittee on Communications and Technology House Committee on Energy and Commerce.)
In a letter to Chairman Wheeler(Chairman Federal Communication Commission)

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0137b0e9-7164-4f57-aefd-42df402b37e7

If the reference was incorrect, one would think that Chairman Wheeler would have pointed that out in his response.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Letters/20150202FCCresponse.pdf

however, this was not the case. Instead here is a quote from the response letter..

We have been urged to act, and act swiftly, to protect Internet openness.
We have also had continuous engagement with stakeholders, including in the form of six separate roundtables. These roundtables, which were open to the public, addressed Open Internet issues, including mobile broadband, effective enforcement, and technological considerations, and also sought the best economic and legal thinking on Open Internet topics.

 

[kydsid]

Wheelers response to the letter was that they had already done exactly what was requested in the letter, he had no reason to respond to the CFR authority if correct or not.

Honestly I don't know what is worse, that congress members pandered to constituents by writing that letter, actually didn't understand the federal rulemaking process, and/or couldn't be bothered to check the public record instead of writing that ridiculous letter.

 

[kydsid]

Read the OGC stance on release of the final rule at this link. He disagrees with the Congressmam too.
http://www.fcc.gov/blog/process-governance-fcc-open-internet-order

 

[cptnjarhead]

Wheelers response to the letter was that they had already done exactly what was requested in the letter, he had no reason to respond to the CFR authority if correct or not.

Honestly I don't know what is worse, that congress members pandered to constituents by writing that letter, actually didn't understand the federal rulemaking process, and/or couldn't be bothered to check the public record instead of writing that ridiculous letter.

That is not the issue, the issue is about disclosure, and people saying this...
from above (aaronspink)

. As part of the rule making process as defined by Congress, every publishing of a proposed rule making as stringent requirements. If the FCC posed the exact text of the rules being voted on, that would require the whole process to start again. As such it would basically result in a never ending loop. Hence the process used by the FCC and that has been used by the FCC for decades.

So, by your definition, they did disclose, buy my definition they did not in the best interest of the public, and it had nothing to do with the "Rule making process"

 

[cptnjarhead]

Read the OGC stance on release of the final rule at this link. He disagrees with the Congressmam too.
http://www.fcc.gov/blog/process-governance-fcc-open-internet-order

Sorry but this is more of the same...

the general purpose of [the deliberative process privilege] . . . is to “prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.” Specifically, three policy purposes consistently have been held to constitute the bases for this privilege: (1) to encourage open, frank discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors; (2) to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are actually adopted; and (3) to protect against public confusion that might result from disclosure of reasons and rationales that were not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency’s action.

They do not state "disclosure" to the public is not lawful, just that it could not be in the best interest of the public. Which is total BS imo.

 

[cptnjarhead]

All the GOP wanted was to stop the FCC from reclassifying the Internet as a Title II telecommunications service. This was and is a bad deal imo, i hope im wrong though, and its all unicorns and flowers from now on, and the BIG bad corporations get whats coming to them, sadly they will get whats coming to them, at our expense. They will benefit from this more than any small start-up.

 

[kydsid]

That is not the issue, the issue is about disclosure, and people saying this...
from above (aaronspink)


So, by your definition, they did disclose, buy my definition they did not in the best interest of the public, and it had nothing to do with the "Rule making process"

But he was more or less correct. The Rule Making Process as laid out in the APA doesn't prohibit the disclosure, is true AFAIK, however it supports strongly the need or reason not to disclose this information. This has therefore been the standard practice for many years in all Agencies. He is also correct that it could create a loop of at somepoint a final rule isnt simply just published. If not the public could essentially block all rule making by continuing to comment. And as Wheeler pointed out that would be a big deal to change for this issue.

How much disclosure do you require to be in your best interest? The proposed rule went out in July 2014. Since you are so interested did you read it?

 

[MrCaffeineX]

Sorry but this is more of the same...



They do not state "disclosure" to the public is not lawful, just that it could not be in the best interest of the public. Which is total BS imo.

A lot of these rules are simply the continuation of the way things have been done in politics for years (and don't try to say that regulations/regulatory agencies are not political - Ajit Pai's dissent alone should make it clear that he is following an ideological path). Whether or not we as individual citizens believe that these closed-door rule-making sessions are in the public interest, it is how things are done. The proposed rules were forwarded to Congress, where, at least in theory, we have a say via our elected representatives. It seems appropriate for the rules to be made public at that time, since Congress could override the changes or allow them to be adopted, and again in theory, our elected representatives should be accountable to us in this regard.

The checks and balances system still allows for public input with respect to regulatory agencies, there is simply a process that must be worked through. We could certainly debate whether or not a system of elected representatives appointing regulators is the best course of action, but at this time it is the system that is in place, therefore the preceding events are in line with the norms of operation. If we as citizens are going to effect any real change we really need to start concentrating on the right areas. Alas, the system has become so convoluted and divisive, it is very difficult for the average citizen to participate effectively, as evidenced by dismal election turnouts, especially during mid-term elections, which arguably are where our votes have the greatest impact on the outcomes of our governance.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

What were these parts?

If adding a few cents every month to my internet bill it what it costs to fund the FCC's enforcement of net neutrality, it's a small price to pay.

 

[cptnjarhead]

How much disclosure do you require to be in your best interest? The proposed rule went out in July 2014. Since you are so interested did you read it?

Are you referring to FCC 14-61, released in May, 2014?
Yes, i have read it, and it sounds so great, until you get to the realization that the FCC wants to reclassify the Internet as a Title II telecommunications service.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Here's the rub:

But this order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. Three factors are critical in informing this approach to interconnection. First, the nature of Internet traffic, driven by massive consumption of video, has challenged traditional arrangements — placing more emphasis on the use of CDNs or even direct connections between content providers (like Netflix or Google) and last-mile broadband providers. Second, it is clear that consumers have been subject to degradation resulting from commercial disagreements, 28 perhaps most notably in a series of disputes between Netflix and large last-mile broadband providers. But, third, the causes of past disruption and — just as importantly — the potential for future degradation through interconnection disputes — are reflected in very different narratives in the record. While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the Internet traffic exchange context. Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules. This order — for the first time — provides authority to consider claims involving interconnection, a process that is sure to bring greater understanding to the commission.

In every single case where the likes of Comcast and Verizon have abused their powers thus far, it has been on the side of peering, and the FCC ruling explicitly does not cover peering.

So, essentially, this does nothing to prevent what happened when both Verizon and Comcast intentionally crippled their peering with Cogent in order to extort Netflix, and it can happen again.

Essentially this is a gigantic loophole. The Net neutrality rules only apply to last mile service. In order to extort companies who refuse to pay them, they can simply sabotage their peering points, or even intentionally program suboptimal static routes in their network to allow them finer granularity in this practice without sabotaging ALL traffic crossing a given peering point.

There IS some legal recourse for the likes of Netflix, against the likes of Comcast and Verizon, but it would have to proceed under monopoly laws which prevent businesses with dominance in one field to use that dominance to force customers away from competitors. (Think Microsoft browser court battle) but this is an arduous and difficult to prove field of law which would take a long time to pursue.

 

[DocFaustus]

All the GOP wanted was to stop the FCC from reclassifying the Internet as a Title II telecommunications service. This was and is a bad deal imo, i hope im wrong though, and its all unicorns and flowers from now on, and the BIG bad corporations get whats coming to them, sadly they will get whats coming to them, at our expense. They will benefit from this more than any small start-up.

I'm sure that you are correct - Yes the "big bad corporations" will make money... They always will, of course. In the grand scheme of things, their profit margins probably wont take a single ding, but that wasn't what is at stake here. And this isn't about being anti-company either.

No matter what you have heard from elsewhere, Net Neutrality isn't about changing the internet, or even making it cheaper. It is fundamentally about attempting to keep the net exactly as it was and NOT let the super companies change the way it works for their gains.

While we have been talking about NN for many many years, it all really came to a head recently. You can thank Verizon's court case win, the countless people who made NN explainer videos, John Oliver, and of course the 4+ million people contacted the FCC to encourage this protection. This is the first time I have seen the people truly influence the system in this manner. I'm glad to have seen it.

In a perfect world full of unicorns and flowers this law wouldn't exist as it wouldn't be needed, but it had to happen. If this law does it job right, then you, me, and everyone else should notice pretty much nothing.

 

[cptnjarhead]

I'm sure that you are correct - Yes the "big bad corporations" will make money... They always will, of course. In the grand scheme of things, their profit margins probably wont take a single ding, but that wasn't what is at stake here. And this isn't about being anti-company either.

No matter what you have heard from elsewhere, Net Neutrality isn't about changing the internet, or even making it cheaper. It is fundamentally about attempting to keep the net exactly as it was and NOT let the super companies change the way it works for their gains.

While we have been talking about NN for many many years, it all really came to a head recently. You can thank Verizon's court case win, the countless people who made NN explainer videos, John Oliver, and of course the 4+ million people contacted the FCC to encourage this protection. This is the first time I have seen the people truly influence the system in this manner. I'm glad to have seen it.

In a perfect world full of unicorns and flowers this law wouldn't exist as it wouldn't be needed, but it had to happen. If this law does it job right, then you, me, and everyone else should notice pretty much nothing.

Again, I hope im wrong, but i believe this is bad for all consumers.

 

[DocFaustus]

Essentially this is a gigantic loophole. The Net neutrality rules only apply to last mile service. In order to extort companies who refuse to pay them, they can simply sabotage their peering points, or even intentionally program suboptimal static routes in their network to allow them finer granularity in this practice without sabotaging ALL traffic crossing a given peering point.

Good catch. My legalese isn't as good as yours, but doesn't last line hint at possible recourse if the netflix thing is done again?

This Order—for the first time—provides authority to consider claims involving interconnection, a process that is sure to bring greater understanding to the Commission.

Also would the Reasonable Network Management definition help bolster it?

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.

So essentially could Netflix bring them claim to the FCC and say, "hey Cable Company X is streaming it's own service faster than Netflix, they are playing both roles."

 

[DocFaustus]

Again, I hope im wrong, but i believe this is bad for all consumers.

We all hope your wrong

So far Zarathustra[H] has found the first potential snag. Let's see how much more gets dug up.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Good catch. My legalese isn't as good as yours, but doesn't last line hint at possible recourse if the netflix thing is done again?



Also would the Reasonable Network Management definition help bolster it?



So essentially could Netflix bring them claim to the FCC and say, "hey Cable Company X is streaming it's own service faster than Netflix, they are playing both roles."

Possibly. I missed that.

I'm by no means a law expert either, and I'm sure differing interpretations of this document will be hashed out by special interests in court so who knows what winds up happening...

 

[kac77]

Where did the idea of mandatory health insurance come from? Didn't the Heritage Foundation propose that in the late 70's? And as far as buying off party members, a Lot of Democrats did lose their seats over the ACA. Like sausage, you don't really want to see politics made. And that's not just the politics of government.

You're partially correct. In reality though there's only one thing that's similar between both plans, which is the individual mandate. It's not the only republican plan to have it either. Mitt Romney's plan also had it. The ACA is far more like Romney's Plan than Heritage.

 

[Romale23]

You're partially correct. In reality though there's only one thing that's similar between both plans, which is the individual mandate. It's not the only republican plan to have it either. Mitt Romney's plan also had it. The ACA is far more like Romney's Plan than Heritage.

Romney should of ran as a democrat

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Romney should of ran as a democrat

By modern standards, even Reagan should have run as a Democrat.

The right has moved so far right, that even former standard bearers for the political right look liberal by modern comparison.

 

[MrGuvernment]

um.. well...ya...

http://www.naturalnews.com/048990_F...ic_agencies_Net_Neutrality.html#ixzz3UKOQhnWS

mmm..really?

 

[kac77]

um.. well...ya...

http://www.naturalnews.com/048990_F...ic_agencies_Net_Neutrality.html#ixzz3UKOQhnWS

mmm..really?

Nice website. It has some classics such as:

*Vicious vaccine culture war now being waged against informed, intelligent Americans who seek to protect their children from deadly side effects

*Harvard research links fluoridated water to ADHD, mental disorders

it's like a right wing site for the hippy movement. A place where you can learn the benefits of yoga while denying science at the same time.