dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-12-23 18:26:52: Two days after the FCC voted 3-2 along partisan lines to approve new network neutrality rules, and just as the public and media are all busily packing for grandmas house, the FCC has released their full network neutrality rules (pdf) over at the FCC .. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


anon7

@comcast.net

Hmm

Sounds pretty basic.



WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

Metered Biling for Fixed Wireless (WISPs)

Subject line says it all.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

As Karl says - not much here; but lots of work for lawyers

Transparency. I assume all providers already provide the required info. But it may be on page 23 of a 40 pg TOS that no one ever looks at unless they are planning a lawsuit of some sort.

No Blocking of legal content leaves a big loophole for blocking web sites that offer up copyrighted material either on purpose or even by accident. This loophole could allow ISPs to block Youtube or other sites that provide user contributed material. Now, given how powerful and rich Google is, we all know Youtube won't be blocked. But there are thousands of sites that have illegal content that don't have Google's clout that can be blocked at will - especially from mobile providers.

The No Discrimination rules is the "Full Employment Act" for all the lawyers out there. We can bet on YEARS of civil action over this one. Maybe the lawyers at the FCC put this one in to provide lots of lucrative work for their ABA brethren.


droobie
Premium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME

SMTP Blocks

So does this mean residential fixed ISPs will have to take down their Port 25 blocks? That would be interesting if so.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Cheat Sheet on subjects in FCC rules PDF

The numbers next to the various subjects are the PARAGRAPH numbers in the PDF document, NOT page numbers. So if you want to jump to a spot that interests you in the document, the paragraph numbers are to the left and at beginning of each paragraph.

»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···01A1.pdf

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. PRESERVING THE FREE AND OPEN INTERNET..............................................................1
II. THE NEED FOR OPEN INTERNET PROTECTIONS .........................................................11
A. The Internet’s Openness Promotes Innovation, Investment, Competition, Free
Expression, and Other National Broadband Goals............................................................13
B. Broadband Providers Have the Incentive and Ability to Limit Internet Openness ...........20
C. Broadband Providers Have Acted to Limit Openness.......................................................35
D. The Benefits of Protecting the Internet’s Openness Exceed the Costs..............................38
III. OPEN INTERNET RULES.....................................................................................................43
A. Scope of the Rules .............................................................................................................44
B. Transparency .....................................................................................................................53
C. No Blocking and No Unreasonable Discrimination ..........................................................62
D. Reasonable Network Management....................................................................................80
E. Mobile Broadband.............................................................................................................93
F. Other Laws and Considerations.......................................................................................107
G. Specialized Services ........................................................................................................112
IV. THE COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY TO ADOPT OPEN INTERNET RULES ...............115
A. Section 706 of the 1996 Act Provides Authority for the Open Internet Rules ................117
B. Authority to Promote Competition and Investment In, and Protect End Users of,
Voice, Video, and Audio Services...................................................................................124
C. Authority to Protect the Public Interest Through Spectrum Licensing ...........................133
D. Authority to Collect Information to Enable the Commission to Perform Its
Reporting Obligations to Congress..................................................................................136
E. Constitutional Issues........................................................................................................138
V. ENFORCEMENT..................................................................................................................151
A. Informal Complaints........................................................................................................153
B. Formal Complaints ..........................................................................................................154
C. FCC Initiated Actions......................................................................................................160
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-201
2
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE, OPEN INTERNET ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND
COMMISSION REVIEW......................................................................................................161
VII.PROCEDURAL MATTERS .................................................................................................164
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis..............................................................................164
B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis ...................................................................165
C. Congressional Review Act ..............................................................................................167
D. Data Quality Act..............................................................................................................168
E. Accessible Formats..........................................................................................................169
VIII.ORDERING CLAUSES.......................................................................................................170
APPENDIX A—Substantive Rules
APPENDIX B—Procedural Rules
APPENDIX C—List of Commenters
APPENDIX D—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

An example is shown below where paragraphs 17 & 18 are on page 10 of the PDF file.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to droobie

Re: SMTP Blocks

I'm sure the answer is "no" because they aren't preventing specific competitors' mail services from working, and the spam and such that originates from an open port 25 means that closing it could be considered "reasonable network management"



Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
reply to WHT

Re: Metered Biling for Fixed Wireless (WISPs)

where do you see this in the PDF, WHT?


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to FFH

Re: As Karl says - not much here; but lots of work for lawyers

Google power? Lets see them come up with content owners and the ISPs with that one. The only thing that needs to happen is Disney-ABC, Warner Bros/TW, and Comcast NBC to go after all the ISPs and enforce that loophole to block youtube. Google NO way could come close with that.



dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

What about...

While I agree with the sentiment I'm not so sure about the aggregate effects of mitigating factors. From my read it seems ISPs who are open about what they are doing AND give the end user a choice may be able to get away with more than the overarching intent.

What if I offered an Email-only service where you would only have access to sending and receiving email..no web..etc at a significantly reduced price. Would this be allowed?

What if I offered a series of bad choices for access plans including a very detailed list of protocols that would be allowed with each plan. I also offered open Internet but the cost for it would be more than most people would be willing to pay.

Since I am open about what I am doing and I am giving the user a choice how much freedom do I have to define anti-competitive plans in these circumstances just as long as I use a large point font and give the customer lots of check boxes?

If I had a choice between neutrality laws and the government doing something meaningful about opening up the last mile rather than seeing cable monopolies win by default I would chose addressing last mile.

No amount of regulation will protect and improve access to the network more than presence of real competition.


PacketExodus

join:2010-07-26

Tell me...

Is the network management practice of limiting simultaneous connections (which can break some high-performance apps) specifically addressed anywhere in this document? I've never found it to be all that reasonable.


hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

FCC

NOT ENFORCABLE



WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
reply to Jim_in_VA

Re: Metered Biling for Fixed Wireless (WISPs)

said by Jim_in_VA:

where do you see this in the PDF, WHT?

I'm just saying that if a WISP goes the metered billing route, you won't have to deal with all the neutrality mumbo-jumbo.

Item #57 indicates if metered is used (and thus the FCC isn't prohibiting meter or usage based billing), then it has to be clearly annotated.

droobie
Premium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME
reply to iansltx

Re: SMTP Blocks

It's a 'lawful application or service' and not all ISPs block Port 25, only some. For instance, my cable ISP (Time Warner) does not in this market.

I do question whether blocks on inbound ports at the ISP level would also be considered permitted for the same reason. Running a web server on your residential connection isn't unlawful, but plenty of ISPs block it.

I won't be the only one to ask these questions I figure.



56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2
reply to droobie

This ruling has no effect on most network management port blocks, especially ones which have better alternatives available like port 25.

Now, if an ISP starts blocking application ports for things like Skype (as a theoretical example), there might be a case.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

reply to dslcreature

Re: What about...

said by dslcreature:

What if I offered an Email-only service where you would only have access to sending and receiving email..no web..etc at a significantly reduced price. Would this be allowed?

....

No amount of regulation will protect and improve access to the network more than presence of real competition.

A smorgasbord of choices wouldn't be bad. (I wouldn't mind metered billing either.). But, the real problem is as you noted: lack of competition. Without competition there's no assurance that the buffet or the price per bytes would be customer-driven. No assurance the ISPs capital expenditures, capacity planning, profit margin would be customer driven.

We either need local ISPs to be under public-utility oversight, or municipal ownership of the last mile (allowing ISPs to compete for every household).

Everything else is just addressing the symptoms, not the problem.


56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: FCC

said by hottboiinnc:

NOT ENFORCABLE

And your communications law degree is from which institution?

It is as enforceable as Congress says it is. And the FCC was ordered by Congress to come up with this.


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Metrocast Commun..
reply to WHT

Re: Metered Biling for Fixed Wireless (WISPs)

Are your current customers usage getting so that metered billing is a consideration? Surely annotating that in new subs is not a issues, it would be in the TOS
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/



56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to amigo_boy

Re: What about...

said by amigo_boy:

Everything else is just addressing the symptoms, not the problem.

And there's the rub. None of this is about customer choice or real competition. The regulations are written by the regulated, and while the surface looks shiny and new the implementation is as hollow and cynical as the term "network neutrality" itself has become. Nothing in here stops Comcast (for instance) from blocking Netflix or Amazon VoD as long as Comcast says you can't use them on a Comcast account, upfront at the ordering stage (while pitching their own VoD services instead). How many people do you think will shrug their shoulders, click "place order" and never look back anyway? They could easily put the competition out of business and be completely within this new regulatory framework, and that is precisely what they bought.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon wrote these rules; make no mistake that they already have the mechanisms necessary to get around them.


anon2

@comcast.net

NN

How many loopholes are in this? It seems pretty vague so far.


droobie
Premium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME
reply to 56403739

Re: SMTP Blocks

Many things could be claimed in network management, like ISPs that block access to DNS servers outside of their network. Doesn't make it right or 'neutral' however. There's plenty of perfectly valid mail going over port 25 and not all DNS traffic is a DDOS attempt.

The only gain I see is that they have to apparently disclose such things. Being told you're going to be hit with a bat before being hit with said bat is a gain, but a pretty insignificant one in most cases since you're likely getting hit either way.


rdmiller

join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

Boo Hoo!

My heart goes out to the news media "all busily packing for grandmas house". Congress needs to pass a law prohibiting news from happening on long holiday weekends and also on Fridays during the summer.


jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2
reply to 56403739

Re: FCC

said by 56403739:

said by hottboiinnc:

NOT ENFORCABLE

And your communications law degree is from which institution?

It is as enforceable as Congress says it is. And the FCC was ordered by Congress to come up with this.

I don't believe Congress told them to write net neutrality laws. If they did, a link to such order would be nice to see.

The FCC WAS ordered to draft a broadband plan, but they were still never given any authority to write any of these laws, which does make them unenforceable.

Roop

join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON

legal language... arg.

"may not unreasonably discriminate" = "may reasonably discriminate"

It's much worse when you consider "reasonable" can mean something different to you than it does to me.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to droobie

Re: SMTP Blocks

"Reasonable netwrk management" is vague enough that nobody will have to do anything different from what they are doing now.


cornelius785

join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
reply to iansltx

Just to play devil's advocate... assuming you want to take the responsibility, wouldn't running your own mail server make you a competitor to your ISP's mail service?



WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
reply to Jim_in_VA

Re: Metered Biling for Fixed Wireless (WISPs)

said by Jim_in_VA:

Are your current customers usage getting so that metered billing is a consideration? Surely annotating that in new subs is not a issues, it would be in the TOS

Current and new installs will be metered. My TOS allows me to make changes, just like the twice a year rate increase from cable.

I had one guy last spring ask if his rate would be guaranteed to never increase (I had previously contacted him months before and he was happy staying with his Verizon data card), but I noticed he had a competitor's Nanostation on the roof last month. By coincidence, a friend knows his daughter's boyfriend and they watch on-line TV movies all day and night, and bought an xBox a few weeks ago to get Netflicks.

droobie
Premium
join:2007-10-09
Bangor, ME

1 recommendation

reply to cornelius785

Re: SMTP Blocks

You assume that all ISPs provide a mail service. Two of the local WISPs here do not provide e-mail in any form. I wouldn't be surprised if more people are pointed toward GMail in the future either.

My argument is that in a 'neutral' environment, I should be allowed to connect to any place on the Internet that is 'legal' to do so. The 'access provider' is supposed to be giving me pure unadulterated access to the Internet of some defined amount for a certain price. They're effectively 'blocking' access to the Internet in some form.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of spam that goes around on Port 25. At the same time, I'm sure there's plenty of questionable materials going around on Port 80. By blocking outgoing or incoming ports, though, they're not 'neutral'. The fact that only 'some' access providers block these things, and others do not, means that it isn't a 'norm' either.

I think the whole Net Neutrality thing is goofy anyway, but it seems they've not passed 'neutrality', they've passed some goofy rules about marketing. Perhaps I'm being myopic.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to droobie

said by droobie:

So does this mean residential fixed ISPs will have to take down their Port 25 blocks? That would be interesting if so.

Nothing personal.. but I don't care to see any port 25 blocks removed on residential accounts. I'm perfectly happy not having zombie-computers sending me messages about Brittney Spear's anything..

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to iansltx

said by iansltx:

"Reasonable netwrk management" is vague enough that nobody will have to do anything different from what they are doing now.

BINGO! So the question is.. what's with all the circus acts going on at the FCC these days? Going off of what Karl posted, alone, its safe to say "nothing to see here"..

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to 56403739

Re: FCC

said by 56403739:

said by hottboiinnc:

NOT ENFORCABLE

And your communications law degree is from which institution?

It is as enforceable as Congress says it is. And the FCC was ordered by Congress to come up with this.

One doesn't necessarily need a law degree to know something. You answered you own question in that "as congress says it is"... um, have you checked lately to see if they have told the FCC its okay? Last I checked, the courts haven't been too keen to a lot of what the FCC has been doing.

But please, continue on.. we know that some people just love expanded government intrusion into our lives.