Author Topic: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules  (Read 2857 times)

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
    • View Profile
FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« on: December 21, 2010, 10:37:42 am »
from HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:

FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
1:21 PM 12/21/2010 by Lindsay Powers

“We are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.
The Federal Communications Commission Tuesday in Washington D.C. passed new rules that govern how providers treat web traffic.

"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said at Tuesday's hearing. "These rules will increase certainty in the marketplace; spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks, and contribute to a 21st century job-creation engine in the United States."

“Given the importance of an open Internet to our economic future…it is essential that the FCC fulfill its historic role as a cop on the beat to ensure the vitality of our communications networks and to empower and protect consumers of those networks,” he added.

The order prevents cable providers from limiting broadband access to rival content and video and gives the FCC the power to issue fines and injunctions against organizations that don't abide by the new regulation.

"The era of legal Internet arbitrage has dawned," Commissioner Robert McDowell said.

The rules could face court opposition from both politcal parties.

"The draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this kind of discrimination," Senator Al Franken wrote Monday night. "What's more, even the protections that are established in the draft Order would be weak because it defines 'broadband Internet access service' too narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get around the rules."

The Writers Guild of America said in a statement:  "Our members write most of what people watch on television and in the movie theaters and increasingly, online.  Today’s FCC vote will diminish our members’ ability to create and distribute innovative content and audiences’ ability to watch the content of their choice.”
 


Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9006
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2010, 11:49:53 am »
from HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:

FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
1:21 PM 12/21/2010 by Lindsay Powers

"The era of legal Internet arbitrage has dawned," Commissioner Robert McDowell said.



Once lawyers have taken a foothold on the 'net, now you know that all hell has broken loose!  ;D 

...and Internet Values...?   Is that, like, Family Values?

Offline Wise Son

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
  • "intelligent and slightly Black. I'm from the 80s"
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2010, 12:12:45 pm »
If this actually makes the principle of net neutrality have a bit more clout behind it, that is great, even if, as Franken seems concerned, its initial form is not airtight.

"Children, if you are tired, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."
-Harriet Tubman
http://yo

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9006
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2010, 12:55:23 pm »
The number one problem of the internet is similar to the real world
---security.


Everything on the 'net revolves around security.  Security of information whether you are storing sensitive information about your finances, your personal life or even internet gaming on your computer!  The internet is extremely insecure.  Very insecure.

Here's an example:   Now what I remember from 12-15 years ago... the Windows 95-98 days,  Battle.Net has the best free online gaming service but it was extremely insecure and became a hacker's paradise; unbeknownst to the gamers playing on Battle.Net, they were getting their PC's vital information broken into through Battle.Net by vicious hackers.  They would know banking records, phone numbers, and even knew how to crash your PC through 3rd party programs installed into games like Diablo, Diablo 2 and Starcraft.  So I stayed away from Battle.Net and created my own LAN (Local Area Network) and invited friends and played that way for years and years.

Anyway, just a mere  few months ago, I decided to re-install Starcraft on a close fam member's PC in lieu of its sequel release, Starcraft II.  Considering the fam member had secured DSL, which was a helluva lot faster than dial-up, I also decided to get bold and  establish an account on Battle.Net and see how my skills fair against today's gamer's.  I totally forgot about the security problems of Battle.Net and wound up spending an entire weekend running Virus programs. A lot of those people on Battle.Net hack into or crash your PC while you are playing against them!  It was crazy! >:(    So I un-installed Starcraft, and never f*cked with it again.  By the way, I achieved something like, 7 wins 3 losses and 7 disconnects ; the disconnects were actually wins but the hackers would crash your PC. ;)

Battle.Net has improved its free on-line service so from what I understand, they have implemented Battle.net 2.0 which runs Starcraft 2, and Diablo 3 (and I think Warcraft III) and is lot more secure than their older service;  Now they have extremely strict banning policies for on line harassment, removal of on line anonymity and restricted use of third party programs that interfere with their business plans. I'm just a casual gamer, who doesn't need the hassle.  My point is, that you probably need universal rules and regulations for businesses on the internet to protect their assets from hacker invaders but who has the 'say so' to do that?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 12:59:56 pm by Battle »

Offline Curtis Metcalf

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • One never knows, do one?
    • View Profile
They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't.
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2010, 08:23:53 am »
Another perspective from CREDO action:

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 [without reclassifying broadband] 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.

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
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
"Be hard on systems, but soft on people."

Offline Reginald Hudlin

  • Landlord
  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
    • View Profile
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2010, 03:11:20 pm »
from HUFFINGTON POST:

Jason Rosenbaum.
Activist living in Washington, DC
Posted: December 21, 2010 03:11 PM

Minutes ago, the FCC passed new rules -- written by corporations -- that will end Net Neutrality. For the first time in history, the U.S. government approved corporate censorship of the Internet, putting the future of online free speech at risk. Unbelievably, the person leading the charge was Obama appointee Julius Genachowski (known in some circles as Judas GenaComcast for his historic sellout and notorious industry-friendly attitude).

These rules also violate President Obama's campaign promise to protect Net Neutrality and appoint an FCC Commissioner who would do the same, but some media are reporting the corporate spin that this is a "Net Neutrality compromise." The White House is trying to convince us this isn't a sellout as well with their wholly supportive statement.

This is not a compromise and it doesn't fulfill Obama's campaign promise -- not even close. There's no such thing as half a First Amendment and no such thing as prohibiting "some" corporate censorship. In reality, these rules are what Senator Al Franken said they are:


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.

Today was another historic sellout to big corporations by the Obama administration, not some kind of "win." We need to set the record straight.


I've put together a page with three clear reasons why today's rules are a sellout, allow corporate censorship, and end the Internet as we know it. I've also copied them below. Can you share this page with our friends so we can get the word out?

If you're on Twitter, please click to share this: NEWS: @FCC breaks Obama promise, allows corporate censorship - no Net Neutrality rules. 3 things to know: http://bit.ly/eVKyWH @WhiteHouse

If you're on Facebook, click here to spread the word.

Here's why today's rules are nothing but a sop to big business:


1.Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone: The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don't like on your phone -- a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can't do online.
2.Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation: The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the "fast lane." Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.
3.The rules allow corporations to create "public" and "private" Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it: For the first time, these rules would embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.

The FCC could have reclassified Internet as a communications service -- reversing a Bush-era mistake -- regulated greedy corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T with enforceable rules, and protected free speech online. But they didn't -- instead, they allowed these corporations to write their own rules.

It's imperative the FCC's action today isn't seen as a "win" for Net Neutrality -- the Internet is still unprotected from corporate abuse and we still have to fight until we truly win. So help us spread the word.


Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9006
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2010, 07:56:10 pm »
It's like, watching the Matrix come to life!

Offline Wise Son

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
  • "intelligent and slightly Black. I'm from the 80s"
    • View Profile
    • My website
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2010, 05:10:20 am »
Damn, this genuinely is idssappointing. Is there any way of this administration, or a future one establishing any kind of net neutrality in the future, or does this mean that the corporation have their foot in the door and that is that?

"Children, if you are tired, keep going; if you are hungry, keep going; if you want to taste freedom, keep going."
-Harriet Tubman
http://yo

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 9006
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2017, 01:55:57 pm »
If you're wondering why pages online lag longer than usual even though your online device may indicate 5 bars fully charged in close proximity to your router...?

You can thank each and every person who helped voted for this hairless ape sitting in the Executive's Mansion.

If you want that online speed and service, you're gonna have to pay extra... even though you already paid for it.