[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FCC Posts Net Neutrality Regulation (Page 1 of 8)
Posted: 3/12/2015 10:45:46 AM EDT
|
Net neutrality regulations made public by FCC
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The benefits of rules and policies protecting an open Internet date back over a decade and must continue. Just over a year ago, the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC struck down the Commission’s 2010 conduct rules against blocking and unreasonable discrimination. But the Verizon court upheld the Commission’s finding that Internet openness drives a “virtuous cycle” in which innovations at the edges of the network enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in broadband infrastructure that, in turn, spark new innovations at the edge. The Verizon court further affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t like. The 2010 rules helped to deter such conduct while they were in effect. But, as Verizon frankly told the court at oral argument, but for the 2010 rules, it would be exploring agreements to charge certain content providers for priority service. Indeed, the wireless industry had a well-established record of trying to keep applications within a carrier-controlled “walled garden” in the early days of mobile applications. That specific practice ended when Internet Protocol (IP) created the opportunity to leap the wall. But the Commission has continued to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices involving blocking or degrading third-party applications. Emerging Internet trends since 2010 give us more, not less, cause for concern about such threats. First, mobile broadband networks have massively expanded since 2010. They are faster, more broadly deployed, more widely used, and more technologically advanced. At the end of 2010, there were about 70,000 devices in the U.S. that had LTE wireless connections. Today, there are more than 127 million. We welcome this tremendous investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace. With carefully-tailored rules in place, that investment can continue to flourish and consumers can continue to enjoy unfettered access to the Internet over their mobile broadband connections. Indeed, mobile broadband is becoming an increasingly important pathway to the Internet independent of any fixed broadband connections consumers may have, given that mobile broadband is not a full substitute for fixed broadband connections. And consumers must be protected, for example from mobile commercial practices masquerading as “reasonable network management.” Second, and critically, the growth of online streaming video services has spurred further evolution of the Internet. Currently, video is the dominant form of traffic on the Internet. These video services directly confront the video businesses of the very companies that supply them broadband access to their customers. The Commission, in its May Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asked a fundamental question: “What is the right public policy to ensure that the Internet remains open?” It proposed to enhance the transparency rule, and follow the Verizon court’s blueprint by relying on section 706 to adopt a no-blocking rule and a requirement that broadband providers engage in “commercially reasonable” practices. The Commission also asked about whether it should adopt other bright-line rules or different standards using other sources of Commission authority, including Title II. And if Title II were to apply, the Commission asked about how it should exercise its authority to forbear from Title II obligations. It asked whether mobile services should also be classified under Title II. Three overarching objectives have guided us in answering these questions, based on the vast record before the Commission: America needs more broadband, better broadband, and open broadband networks. These goals are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. Without an open Internet, there would be less broadband investment and deployment. And, as discussed further below, all three are furthered through the open Internet rules and balanced regulatory framework we adopt today. In enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress instructed expert agencies conducting rulemaking proceedings to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” It is public comment that cements an agency’s expertise. As was explained in the seminal report that led to the enactment of the APA: The reason for [an administrative agency’s] existence is that it is expected to bring to its task greater familiarity with the subject than legislators, dealing with many subjects, can have. But its knowledge is rarely complete, and it must always learn the frequently clashing viewpoints of those whom its regulations will affect. Congress could not have imagined when it enacted the APA almost seventy years ago that the day would come when nearly 4 million Americans would exercise their right to comment on a proposed rulemaking. But that is what has happened in this proceeding and it is a good thing. The Commission has listened and it has learned. Its expertise has been strengthened. Public input has “improve[d] the quality of agency rulemaking by ensuring that agency regulations will be ‘tested by exposure to diverse public comment.’” There is general consensus in the record on the need for the Commission to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules. There is also general consensus on the need to have such rules. Today the Commission, informed by all of those views, makes a decision grounded in the record. The Commission has considered the arguments, data, and input provided by the commenters, even if not in agreement with the particulars of this Order; that public input has created a robust record, enabling the Commission to adopt new rules that are clear and sustainable. |
|
Looks to me that Google Fiber won big.
1445 Leveling the pole attachment playing field for new entrants that offer solely broadband services also removes barriers to deployment and fosters additional broadband competition.1446 For similar reasons we find that applying these provisions will protect consumers and advance the public interest under sections 10(a)(2) and (a)(3).1447 479. |
|
Quoted: Looks to me that Google Fiber won big. 1445 Leveling the pole attachment playing field for new entrants that offer solely broadband services also removes barriers to deployment and fosters additional broadband competition.1446 For similar reasons we find that applying these provisions will protect consumers and advance the public interest under sections 10(a)(2) and (a)(3).1447 479. Are you saying The Cartel can no longer buy state lawmakers to outlaw the free market?   |
|
Quoted:
Somebody be sure to point out to me when the sky actually falls. You know, for real. It won't fall at all. It will descend so slowly we will barely notice. The government will pick winners and losers, the politicians will make money regardless, we as citizens and consumers will foot the bill. |
|
Quoted:
Somebody be sure to point out to me when the sky actually falls. You know, for real. How about you point out where there's any indication that the gov isn't going to fix the fuck out of the internet like they have with everything else 
"If you like your 56k, you can have to keep your 56k." |
|
Quoted:
It won't fall at all. It will descend so slowly we will barely notice. The government will pick winners and losers, the politicians will make money regardless, we as citizens and consumers will foot the bill. Quoted:
Quoted:
Somebody be sure to point out to me when the sky actually falls. You know, for real. It won't fall at all. It will descend so slowly we will barely notice. The government will pick winners and losers, the politicians will make money regardless, we as citizens and consumers will foot the bill. Incrementalism 
|
|
Quoted: How about you point out where there's any indication that the gov isn't going to fix the fuck out of the internet like they have with everything else "If you like your 56k, you can have to keep your 56k." Quoted: Quoted: Somebody be sure to point out to me when the sky actually falls. You know, for real. How about you point out where there's any indication that the gov isn't going to fix the fuck out of the internet like they have with everything else "If you like your 56k, you can have to keep your 56k." Lets go back to the 1950s where you had to buy your phones from AT&T and if you used a non AT&T phone, AT&T disconnected your service permanently. |
|
Quoted:
Are you saying The Cartel can no longer buy state lawmakers to outlaw the free market?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks to me that Google Fiber won big. 1445 Leveling the pole attachment playing field for new entrants that offer solely broadband services also removes barriers to deployment and fosters additional broadband competition.1446 For similar reasons we find that applying these provisions will protect consumers and advance the public interest under sections 10(a)(2) and (a)(3).1447 479. Are you saying The Cartel can no longer buy state lawmakers to outlaw the free market?
That will probably be the only good thing to come out of this, but time will tell. |
|
FCC 209 Sec 3(a)7789-1002/aa(6):
"Supreme authority for monitoring all discussion groups, forums, blogs, comments sections, feedback, online reviews, and/or, but not limited to all above aforementioned "groups" as previously mentioned in subsection 3398-21.1(a) shall be vested in Cheaper Than Dirt." |
|
15.
No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network 16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non harmful devices, subject reasonable network management. 16. No Throttling.The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. 17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider’s business model. |
|
Quoted:
Lets go back to the 1950s where you had to buy your phones from AT&T and if you used a non AT&T phone, AT&T disconnected your service permanently. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Somebody be sure to point out to me when the sky actually falls. You know, for real. How about you point out where there's any indication that the gov isn't going to fix the fuck out of the internet like they have with everything else
"If you like your 56k, you can have to keep your 56k." Lets go back to the 1950s where you had to buy your phones from AT&T and if you used a non AT&T phone, AT&T disconnected your service permanently. lol.... Let's just pull out all kinds of shit that has zero relevance to present day as well, while we're at it! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
15.
No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network 16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non harmful devices, subject reasonable network management. 16. No Throttling.The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. 17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider’s business model. WOW.... 
This post just put it all into perspective for me. |
|
Fixed the OP's formatting and omitted the page breaks/reference/footnotes for easier reading...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The benefits of rules and policies protecting an open Internet date back over a decade and must continue. Just over a year ago, the D.C. Circuit in Verizon v. FCC struck down the Commission’s 2010 conduct rules against blocking and unreasonable discrimination. But the Verizon court upheld the Commission’s finding that Internet openness drives a “virtuous cycle” in which innovations at the edges of the network enhance consumer demand, leading to expanded investments in broadband infrastructure that, in turn, spark new innovations at the edge. The Verizon court further affirmed the Commission’s conclusion that “broadband providers represent a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t like. The 2010 rules helped to deter such conduct while they were in effect. But, as Verizon frankly told the court at oral argument, but for the 2010 rules, it would be exploring agreements to charge certain content providers for priority service. Indeed, the wireless industry had a well-established record of trying to keep applications within a carrier-controlled “walled garden” in the early days of mobile applications. That specific practice ended when Internet Protocol (IP) created the opportunity to leap the wall. But the Commission has continued to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices involving blocking or degrading third-party applications. Emerging Internet trends since 2010 give us more, not less, cause for concern about such threats. First, mobile broadband networks have massively expanded since 2010. They are faster, more broadly deployed, more widely used, and more technologically advanced. At the end of 2010, there were about 70,000 devices in the U.S. that had LTE wireless connections. Today, there are more than 127 million. We welcome this tremendous investment and innovation in the mobile marketplace. With carefully-tailored rules in place, that investment can continue to flourish and consumers can continue to enjoy unfettered access to the Internet over their mobile broadband connections. Indeed, mobile broadband is becoming an increasingly important pathway to the Internet independent of any fixed broadband connections consumers may have, given that mobile broadband is not a full substitute for fixed broadband connections. And consumers must be protected, for example from mobile commercial practices masquerading as “reasonable network management.” Second, and critically, the growth of online streaming video services has spurred further evolution of the Internet. Currently, video is the dominant form of traffic on the Internet. These video services directly confront the video businesses of the very companies that supply them broadband access to their customers. The Commission, in its May Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asked a fundamental question: “What is the right public policy to ensure that the Internet remains open?” It proposed to enhance the transparency rule, and follow the Verizon court’s blueprint by relying on section 706 to adopt a no-blocking rule and a requirement that broadband providers engage in “commercially reasonable” practices. The Commission also asked about whether it should adopt other bright-line rules or different standards using other sources of Commission authority, including Title II. And if Title II were to apply, the Commission asked about how it should exercise its authority to forbear from Title II obligations. It asked whether mobile services should also be classified under Title II. Three overarching objectives have guided us in answering these questions, based on the vast record before the Commission: America needs more broadband, better broadband, and open broadband networks. These goals are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. Without an open Internet, there would be less broadband investment and deployment. And, as discussed further below, all three are furthered through the open Internet rules and balanced regulatory framework we adopt today. In enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress instructed expert agencies conducting rulemaking proceedings to “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” It is public comment that cements an agency’s expertise. As was explained in the seminal report that led to the enactment of the APA: The reason for [an administrative agency’s] existence is that it is expected to bring to its task greater familiarity with the subject than legislators, dealing with many subjects, can have. But its knowledge is rarely complete, and it must always learn the frequently clashing viewpoints of those whom its regulations will affect. Congress could not have imagined when it enacted the APA almost seventy years ago that the day would come when nearly 4 million Americans would exercise their right to comment on a proposed rulemaking. But that is what has happened in this proceeding and it is a good thing. The Commission has listened and it has learned. Its expertise has been strengthened. Public input has “improve[d] the quality of agency rulemaking by ensuring that agency regulations will be ‘tested by exposure to diverse public comment.’” There is general consensus in the record on the need for the Commission to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules. There is also general consensus on the need to have such rules. Today the Commission, informed by all of those views, makes a decision grounded in the record. The Commission has considered the arguments, data, and input provided by the commenters, even if not in agreement with the particulars of this Order; that public input has created a robust record, enabling the Commission to adopt new rules that are clear and sustainable. |
|
Quoted:
Are you saying The Cartel can no longer buy state lawmakers to outlaw the free market?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks to me that Google Fiber won big. 1445 Leveling the pole attachment playing field for new entrants that offer solely broadband services also removes barriers to deployment and fosters additional broadband competition.1446 For similar reasons we find that applying these provisions will protect consumers and advance the public interest under sections 10(a)(2) and (a)(3).1447 479. Are you saying The Cartel can no longer buy state lawmakers to outlaw the free market?
Yeah now they have to buy federal politicians. The cost is higher but they get more for their money.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
15.
No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network 16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non harmful devices, subject reasonable network management. 16. No Throttling.The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. 17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider’s business model. good post. |
|
FCC Commissioner Pai's summary of Obama's takeover of the Internet:
Policy Summary http://www.fcc.gov/document/pais-policy-summary-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet POLICY SUMMARY OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI’S
STATEMENT DISSENTING FROM THE FCC’S DECISION TO ADOPT PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET ? For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet—one unfettered by government regulation. So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? It is flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told it to do so. ? The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world. Legal Summary http://www.fcc.gov/document/pais-legal-summary-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet ? In adopting President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet, the FCC violated the procedural
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). o The FCC never proposed the rules being adopted, violating the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement. In last year’s Notice, the FCC proposed rules under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Every single proposal and every single tentative conclusion in last year’s Notice was tailored to avoid reclassifying broadband as a Title II service. Yet that’s exactly what the FCC does in this Order. o No one could have anticipated the number or nature of the hoops the Order would jump through to reclassify broadband. Nor could anyone have anticipated the Order’s 49 separate forbearance decisions; its decision to subject interconnection to Title II as a “component” of broadband Internet access service; its decision to amend agency rules regarding mobile broadband; or its adoption of an omnivorous “Internet conduct” standard, the scope of which remains uncertain. |
|
Transfers of Unlawful Content and Unlawful Transfers of Content
304. 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. 782 We affirm this tentative conclusion and re-state that open Internet rules do not prohibit broadband providers from making reasonable efforts to address the transfer of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content to ensure that open Internet rules are not used as a shield to enable unlawful activity or to deter prompt action against such activity For example, the no-blocking rule should not be invoked to protect copyright infringement, which has adverse consequences for the economy, nor should it protect child pornography. We reiterate that our rules do not alter the copyright laws and are not intended to prohibit or discourage voluntary practices undertaken to address or mitigate the occurrence of copyright infringement. 783 After consideration of the record, we retain this rule, which is applicable to both fixed and mobile broadband providers engaged in broadband Internet access service and reads as follows: Nothing in this part prohibits reasonable efforts by a provider of broadband Internet access service to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity. 305. Some commenters contend that this rule promotes the widespread use of intrusive packet inspection technologies by broadband providers to filter objectionable content and that such monitoring poses a threat to customers’ privacy rights. 784 Certainly, many broadband providers have the technical tools to conduct deep packet inspection of unencrypted traffic on their networks, 785 and consumer privacy is a paramount concern in the Internet age. Nevertheless, we believe that broadband monitoring concerns are adequately addressed by the rules we adopt today, so we decline to alter this provision. This rule is limited to protecting “reasonable efforts . . . to address copyright infringement or other unlawful activity.” 786 We retain the discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of broadband providers’ practices under this rule on a case-by-case basis. Consumers also have many tools at their disposal to protect their privacy against deep packet inspection—including SSL encryption, virtual private networks, and routing methods like TOR. 787 Further, the complaint processes we adopt today add to these technical methods and advance consumer interests in this area. 788 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
15.
No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network 16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non harmful devices, subject reasonable network management. 16. No Throttling.The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. 17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider’s business model. Goodbye torrents? |
|
Links to the Order and Press Release summarizing the Order: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf |
|
Quoted:
Goodbye torrents? Quoted:
Quoted:
15.
No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network 16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non harmful devices, subject reasonable network management. 16. No Throttling.The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. 17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider’s business model. Goodbye torrents? No. Stop neckbearding the series of tubes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
15.
No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone which protected a customer’s right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network 16 Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non harmful devices, subject reasonable network management. 16. No Throttling.The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer’s broadband connection: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. 17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. 17 It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider’s business model. Fuck. |
