This reads exceedingly well but the devil is in the detail. As we have seen countless times that there is significant difference between what gets proposed and what gets passed. As others have stated
> will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.
the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?
In this context, "lawful" is probably intended to refer to categories of content than any particular instance. That is, it leaves the door open for blocking known categories of unlawful content like child porn, pirated software, malware, and maybe spam. Depending on implementation, this could definitely be problematic -- e.g. will Comcast interpret this as carte blanche to block BitTorrent if the majority of BitTorrent use is unlawful?
But it's still a huge net gain for startups, most of which fall safely on the lawful side of the line.
definitely not a gain for start ups considering the legal climate towards things like ride share.
> In this context, "lawful" is probably...
If I've learned anything about law and politics, its that you can practically toss the context. If it can be twisted, it will be twisted more ways than you can imagine. Something like 90+% of "terrorist" surveillance usage is used for non-violent drug crime and they don't even have to disclose it (if you really push, they'll give you 'parallel reconstruction').
I'm sure at one point, someone in DC said something along the lines of "We will only prevent terrorist activity" (where terrorist is at least related to terrorism... probably...)
> Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"
It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules.
It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or without a third-party request, to block unlawful content. Of course, because it is a federal rule, any local request seeking to block unlawful content that would also (or actually) block lawful content would be preempted by the federal rule prohibiting blocking lawful content, so it would constrain the kinds of actions that could be taken in pursuit of blocking unlawful content. But, in any case, any ability cities would have under this rule to request blocking Uber, etc., would be no more ability than they have without the rule.
I had trouble understanding this comment at first, I think you're comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "no net neutrality required by law" (i.e., status quo), whereas the comment thread is, I think, comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "net neutrality under an even stronger rule that does not have an exception for unlawful content".
That said, I'm really curious how preemption plays into this. For instance, if federal law is silent on the selling of some particular thing, and local law says that selling that thing is a crime, and there's a federal law that e.g. makes it a crime to interfere with "lawful" interstate commerce, and I interfere with you selling that thing, did I commit a federal crime? I can see arguments both ways that make sense to me as a layman, but I'm sure there's a standard answer to this.
Probably not. It would be an exceptional deviation from existing understanding of the First Amendment, to put it lightly. The cases where blocking speech is permitted in the US involve distributing material that is illegal to possess or distribute (stuff distributed in violation of copyright, for instance).
In the case of Uber, what might be illegal is purchasing service from them (or them selling it to you). Them telling you about their service, even if it's illegal in your jurisdiction, is protected speech.
Cannabis is currently illegal to possess or purchase in my state (although not for long). It's still legal for me to read High Times or websites selling commercial products that are legal in Colorado. It'd be illegal for me to place an order.
(And if it's permitted under the proposed regulatory environment, it's probably permitted now, too.)
If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.
The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.
I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. They're the ones doing the blocking, and if they block the wrong stuff, they're the ones going to court.
Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)?
I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.
This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.
this isn't an act of congress though. its regulations that the FCC has the authority to create and implement. if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is. regulations can be challenged at court but until that happens they will stick.
1. its not clear that that's what a congressional majority wants. there is a faction of congress that is aligned with ISPs that wants that, but there is also a large faction of congress aligned differently. i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines.
2. an act of congress that diminishes the authority of the FCC would have to be signed by Obama, which he will not do. there is no faction in congress now that has a veto proof majority.
3. there is immense popular support for net neutrality and any action taken by congress against it is likely to lead to immediate and intense political pressure on those members of congress. lets not forget this country is still a democracy (mostly). the congressional representatives act against public interest at their own peril.
> i don't think this issue breaks along strictly D vs. R party lines.
There's a little bit of fuzzing on the boundaries, but this issue has been the focus of lots of legislative action since it first became a controversy, and its pretty consistently been a large majority of Republicans opposing FCC action for neutrality and neutrality generally. And, over the years, the partisan alignment has increasingly solidified.
The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs.
The recent moves have been lobbyist-inspired, though. Sad.
> The Republicans were right to oppose FCC action for "neutrality" when what it really meant (at the time) was the ability to monitor and censor conservative blogs.
The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet -- the thing the FCC has done addressing what is known in public discourse as "net neutrality" -- principles haven't substantially changed, though details of the approach to advancing them have, and neither the principles nor the implementation approaches have ever included monitoring and censoring conservative blogs. And the GOP has been opposed to FCC regulating non-blocking and non-discrimination for all lawful content by broadband ISPs for years.
You seem to be confusing what is itself a misrepresentation of the Federal Elections Commission -- a completely different agency -- discussions on rules for political ad disclosures in the wake of a 2005 Federal court ruling requiring them not to exempt all internet communication from the scope of "public communication" in their rules with the FCC's Open Internet rules.
(Or perhaps confusing something that was an even bigger misrepresentation of Federal Trade Commission rules on online general advertising disclosures.)
Congress is "pro-fundraising". Leaving this matter to the FCC, or issuing clear legislation for or against Net Neutrality isn't as conducive to future fundraising as muddled legislation is...
The President can still veto though, and Obama's been pretty supportive of net neutrality recently. So we'll at least have net neutrality around for a little under two years. After that, the hope is that sheer inertia keeps things from reverting.
> if Wheeler says thats how it is, then that's how it is
Not entirely. It's a proposal, which must be voted on by the rest of the FCC committee. It's unlikely everyone on the committee will agree 100%, but I'd also contend it's unlikely for this to not pass in and around it's current state.
> Anyone care to bet the cable companies will take a no-holds-barred attempt to delay this until after the presidential election?
They'll probably just sue to invalidate it once the FCC finalizes it (they may seek a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement as part of that, as well); there isn't much they can do in the way of delaying it otherwise.
He got a 3/2 split on the redefinition of broadband with one of the yeas publicly admitting that she would have rather seen 100Mbit as the threshold. It stands to reason that this will pass too with the current committee makeup.
If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright once they install their pro-business people and fix all of this "Socialist" claptrap.
> If the GOP wins 2016, however, the future may not be so bright
Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing?
The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. The problem with this plan is it takes time and people want an immediate result.
That's not "hating america" and it's not "doomsday" if GOP wins in 2016.
Nor is the President a king -- ie. the President has Zero control over what the FCC does. So it really doesn't matter who wins in 2016 since you already have a strongly led GOP congress... who does have power over the FCC.
> the President has Zero control over what the FCC does.
Other than appointing the commissioners, and exerting both indirect (and, through the use of the veto, potentially direct) influence over legislation which controls the scope of the FCCs regulatory authority, and appointing members of the Federal judiciary who ultimately resolve disputes over the FCCs actions, sure, the President has zero control over what the FCC does.
Can you point to some specific policies that support the idea that the GOP will encourage competition from smaller players against entrenched interests? I mean, I don't think the Democrats are much better on that front, mind you, but they're the ones supporting Net Neutrality, while Republicans in Congress are trying to ban the FCC from doing this, and Net Neutrality is very much about encouraging competition from smaller players in the market.
And for that matter, maybe they don't 'hate America', but it's awfully hard to tell sometimes, what with Sarah Palin's 'Hit List' of abortion doctors, and the keen interest they take in who can and can't get married, and pretty regularly making the poor out to be villains somehow, etc etc. I suppose if you you're only counting white, Christian conservatives, then Republicans don't hate America. Otherwise, it's a tough sell.
> Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing?
Whether or not the GOP is generally evil, it certainly seems to be true that their position on net neutrality has been consistently bad and if they're allowed set policy on it, they'll do it in a way that will let carriers interpose themselves as gatekeepers.
>The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys.
That's the rhetoric, anyway. It's less clear how that's likely to fall out of any of their proposed policies.
The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power.
This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.
> The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job
The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees.
> This isn't a party thing...
Every FCC vote on Open Internet ("net neutrality") rules for the last several years has had a 3-2 divide on party lines (Democrats for Open Internet regs, Republicans against).
And Supreme Court Justices decisions, throughout their careers, on issues that are politically salient at the time of their appointment very closely track the positions of the President that appointed them. While lots of people like to pretend that the judiciary is apolitical and nonpartisan, all the actual evidence is that it is anything but.
> Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees.
Right, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in general -- while not at all apolitical and nonpartisan -- are still more insulated from partisan politics and the mood current among elected politicians than, say, members of the FCC because they have lifetime tenure rather than 5 year terms. I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your case that the current net neutrality debate, both in the FCC and more generally, is not strongly partisan.
> It's not a party thing.
I'd surely prefer that support for net neutrality -- on the FCC, in Congress, and more generally -- wasn't a strongly partisan issue, but all the actual facts show that it is an issue that is extremely partisan. You can keep repeating "it's not a party thing" all you want, but it won't stop the fact that on the FCC, support for net neutrality regulations has consistently been split with Democrats for and Republicans against, in the Congress, support for the FCC issuing net neutrality regulations, or the Congress adopting strong net neutrality regulations itself, has consistently been strongly tilted to Democrats for and Republicans against (and, conversely, support for legislation explicitly prohibitong the FCC from regulating for neutrality has been strongly tilted to Republicans for, Democrats against.)
It is a party thing, whether you think it should be or not.
The President has the power to appoint FCC commissioners, subject to confirmation by the Senate. This is a pretty significant influence, albeit an indirect one.
The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys.
That's what I hear around election time, but I'm not convinced its supported by their legislative record.
The President has a great deal of indirect control over the FCC. All FCC commissioners are appointed by the President. But they don't turn over immediately, since they're appointed at 5-year intervals. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commissi....
Worth reading in this context Joel Brinkley's "Defining Vision", about the history of broadcast HDTV in the US.
Also, history strongly suggests that the GOP's political rhetoric is a load of dingo's kidneys. Do you honestly believe that stuff? Do you have any corroborating examples? Because the GOP that was in power prior to 2008 pretty much exemplified the opposite strategy.
Good. Why people want the government's hand's deeper in the internet than now is beyond me.
Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds.
Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data.
I have to say I'ld like to see the "socialist claptrap", feel-good crap, out of here.
Lastly, who thinks the people have a leg to stand on versus the NSA and privacy if the government has more control over the internet?
>Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data.
Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch). Title II seemed to work pretty well until then.
>Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds.
The difference in infrastructure costs makes those two incomparable.
Look, you just suffer under a reality distortion field.
Are you trolling? Data is to voice as electricity is to fire; one is inherently more versatile and can handle all applications the other can. You're basically asking the equivalent of "why has all the innovation happened in electricity and not in fire? Must be the gubmint's fault"
What did you expect? That a robot would read out websites to us?
> Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data.
Innovation like single-gig data caps? Or do you mean innovation like "unlimited data, except no streaming and no hotspots"?
Compared to the voice situation on mobile, or to landline Internet, mobile Internet is garbage. I don't understand what you mean. Heck, IME, 50mbps landline Internet is easier to get than 4G Internet is outside of cities. And the price isn't much better either. I pay $50/mo for 50mbps down for cable Internet, I pay $40/mo for my 2GB capped Verizon Internet which is 4G (sometimes).
That's not true. The only carrier banned from blocking tethering is Verizon -- and that applies only to phones using the C Block spectrum. That's because when the FCC sold that spectrum it came with strong net neutrality rules attached (e.g. open devices, use any app, etc.)
> will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.
the keyword here is lawful. Will all content be lawful unless proven otherwise?