dslreports logo
 story category
FCC To Announce New Net Neutrality Rules Monday
Agency leaks news to most major news outlets...

The FCC has leaked word to the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post that the agency plans to introduce new network neutrality guidelines on Monday. The FCC's existing network neutrality policy statement (pdf) isn't law and may not even be enforceable in court -- something Comcast's lawyers are currently trying to prove after getting their wrist slapped by the FCC for P2P throttling last year. While Genachowski has said he supports network neutrality, he's been painfully vague on how precisely enforcing such a concept should be accomplished.

According to the FCC's chatty anonymous source, Genachowski will lay his plans out on Monday in a speech, but the framework for more concrete rules won't appear until at least October when the formal rule-making process begins at an FCC meeting. According to sources, the new rules will act to bolster the FCC's legal standing against ISPs by clearly defining a fifth principle, but they'll also work to apply the existing rules to wireless carriers, who so far have been exempt from such guidelines.

This leak comes just as Network neutrality supporters were buoyed by the news that Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), added himself as a co-sponsor to the Net neutrality bill recently introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). It still remains unlikely that the bill makes it past the armies of lobbyists and policy wonks employed by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, but the debate should at least provide some much needed fall entertainment in the telecom space.

New FCC guidelines could fuel the argument by network neutrality opponents that Markey's law is unnecessary, so it's important to keep a close eye on just how tough and concise these guidelines really are. This can now go two ways: Genachowski can make his first bold decision and enact tough rules that show the FCC is finally shaking off telco lobbyist influence, or he can engage in a dog and pony show and pass wimpy rules designed to look good, but which do little more than pre-empt tougher Congressional laws. Wagers, anyone?
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

October will start process; not end it

Mr. Genachowski is expected to announce plans for the agency to open a formal rule-making process on the issue at its October meeting.
So according to WSJ, Genachowski will say what he is after on Monday. The October FCC mtg will kick off the rule making process - that could run months. At some future time the FCC commissioners would vote on the new rules.

And the rules would discriminate between wired and wireless carriers:
The FCC's proposed rules are expected to say that the agency plans to take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to someone familiar with the plan.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: October will start process; not end it

said by FFH5:

And the rules would discriminate between wired and wireless carriers:
The FCC's proposed rules are expected to say that the agency plans to take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to someone familiar with the plan.
5GB cap with $0.05/KB for life! Look at it this way, your getting SIX, 6 SIX! text messages for the price of just a THIRD, 1/3rd of a text message, this is a firesale!

meister_sd
Premium Member
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA

meister_sd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I hope it's October of this year........

DrModem
Trust Your Doctor
Premium Member
join:2006-10-19
USA

DrModem

Premium Member

Don't get your hopes up.

The "rules" are likely to be anemic at best.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

that fake smile says it all

haha get ready for the great American frak over
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

rdmiller

Member

Until there's a law ...

Until Congress passes a law giving the FCC new authority, these are still just recommendations. The FCC knows it can't take any enforcement action unless it wants to spend the next 8 years in court.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

Re: Until there's a law ...

Yet we can be sure that lots of folks will stamp their feet and gnash their teeth at service providers who choose to ignore some of the FCC's non-enforceable recommendations, because they will consider their own personal preferences for the FCC's recommendations to be holy, and any reasonable disagreement with those personal preferences and recommendations, such as those held by the service providers, to be the work of the devil.

sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Until there's a law ...

said by bUU:

Yet we can be sure that lots of folks will stamp their feet and gnash their teeth at service providers who choose to ignore some of the FCC's non-enforceable recommendations, because they will consider their own personal preferences for the FCC's recommendations to be holy, and any reasonable disagreement with those personal preferences and recommendations, such as those held by the service providers, to be the work of the devil.


...Incumbents do not have "reasonable disagreements". Personal preferences have nothing to do with the concept of Network Neutrality. Get over yourself.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

1 recommendation

bUU

Member

Re: Until there's a law ...

Hold up a mirror buck-o. You're the one implying that your personal preferences should prevail, and that those who disagree with you are unreasonable. Your way is the only way huh? Gosh, I don't think anyone could possibly demonstrate having a bigger head than by asserting what you have.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Until there's a law ...

said by bUU:

Hold up a mirror buck-o. You're the one implying that your personal preferences should prevail, and that those who disagree with you are unreasonable. Your way is the only way huh? Gosh, I don't think anyone could possibly demonstrate having a bigger head than by asserting what you have.
I never said my "personal preference" was the reason Network Neutrality should prevail. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Various websites have gone over in-depth how Network Neutrality has historically been the norm, and how it has led to an explosion of innovation in internet service applications.

There is a huge, HUGE positive economic and social incentive to enforce network neutrality.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

1 edit

bUU

Member

Re: Until there's a law ...

There is also a huge negative economic and social incentive to what you want. Unfunded mandates stifle innovation and economic growth.

It is only your personal preference that justifies imposing your favored mandates on others. If you prefer something, then do it yourself, in the company you own, but don't impose your personal preferences on others. Let them live in accordance with their own preferences, given that both sides reasonably disagree about these matters.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to rdmiller

Member

to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:

Until Congress passes a law giving the FCC new authority, these are still just recommendations. The FCC knows it can't take any enforcement action unless it wants to spend the next 8 years in court.
There does not need to be a law, only a rule which becomes part of the FCC rules which is a part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Laws provide a general framework and agencies such as the FCC set rules. In fact you too can propose rules via a petition for rulemaking, which goes for public comment and if approved becomes a rule within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 recommendation

funchords

MVM

Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

I'm stoked.

All you industry fans that are so dejected today, chin up. This is great for you!

Look, under the "non-neutral" model, you really only care about the traffic of the few people that pay extra to the carriers. It's not only disastrous for the free and open Internet, it's self-limiting to the carriers.

Under the current and future "net-neutral" model, the information and entertainment everyone wants is your bread and butter! Especially Verizon, who has headroom to spare, can invite users and service providers to "fill it up, we'll make more!"

Have a good weekend, guys. I know you love the 'Net as much as I do. This really is a win for everyone.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

yah its called Comcast drags the FCC back into court AGAIN over this and gets the FCC's hands smacked this time, well I should say again.

The FCC needs to learn what they can and can NOT due without having power. With out the power they're nothing and the ISPs know this.

Also Congress will NEVER pass Net Neutral laws giving the FCC the power. They know better as they'll lose election money.

ATT can easily give money to someone else that is NOT in favor of these laws, which they will.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

1 edit

SuperWISP to funchords

Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

All you industry fans that are so dejected today, chin up. This is great for you!
No. "Network neutrality" is great for Google, which pays your salary. But it is bad for ISPs, bad for innovation, and bad for consumers.

Fortunately, the article above is short on facts and long on conjecture. Genachowski has said (see my earlier message in this thread) that he does not believe the FCC should regulate when markets are working. The broadband market is vibrant and highly competitive, so by Genachowski's own criteria no regulation is necessary and none should be imposed.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

said by SuperWISP:

said by funchords:

All you industry fans that are so dejected today, chin up. This is great for you!
No. "Network neutrality" is great for Google, which pays your salary. But it is bad for ISPs, bad for innovation, and bad for consumers.
Seriously....really did you just write that?

Your bitterness has truly gotten the best of you. The genie is out of the bottle, bandwidth is cheap and plentiful when in the right hands.

So please explain to us how and open internet is bad for us? Please remember to cite examples of how it is better for ME than YOU limit my choices?

Please remember to give examples, because as of yet you have never provided a scrape of evidence to support anything you say.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

said by DataRiker:

The genie is out of the bottle, bandwidth is cheap and plentiful when in the right hands.
OK, Mr. Genie, let's see you obtain Internet backbone bandwidth -- at wholesale -- in my city, Laramie Wyoming, for less than $80 per Mbps per month. Oh, what's this? You can't? Then quit falsely claiming that bandwidth is cheap.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

On my current ISP I have used up to 800 GB at 59.00 USD per month.

That is less than $ 0.08 cents per Gigabyte.

If your too lethargic to keep up, please get out of the way and let real companies offer progressive products.

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear how when you limit my choices and restrict my internet its good for me. You made this claim now you should back it up.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

1 edit

SuperWISP

Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

said by DataRiker:

On my current ISP I have used up to 800 GB at 59.00 USD per month.

That is less than $ 0.08 cents per Gigabyte.
Which shows that you do not know a gigabyte of data from a data rate in megabits per second, and therefore are not qualified to comment.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

Please give me this magical formula that computes my ISP's wholesale cost from my measured cost?

Your logic is astounding.

I will give you a clue - data rate and volume are connected. I can only measure my total volume, versus my cost since I don't have insider knowledge of my ISP.

By the way, most larger companies do not publish what there bandwidth costs actually are, mainly because many have their own backbone and have for the most part secretive agreements between other backbone providers about transit agreements.

And also to clarify most private companies who do not trade traffic, like you SuperWISP would almost certainly have one of two choices burst-able bandwidth sold at a percentile, or a dedicated line (usually more expensive). From the quality of your posts I doubt you understand the difference.

still waiting for an example how consumers will be hurt by an open and free internet

Random_Nut
@vsnl.net.in

Random_Nut

Anon

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

said by DataRiker:

I will give you a clue - data rate and volume are connected. I can only measure my total volume, versus my cost since I don't have insider knowledge of my ISP.

Good point riker. How could you possible know your ISP's aggregate data rate? Looks like someone needed a quick math lesson. Thats sad

Random_Nut
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

I will give you a clue - data rate and volume are connected.
And I'll give you a clue: this is only true if the connection is saturated.
said by DataRiker:

I can only measure my total volume, versus my cost since I don't have insider knowledge of my ISP.
Which is exactly the point. You're lashing out, blindly, without having any knowledge of how an ISP works or what its cost structure is like.

Oh, and by the way: no ISP is seeking to prevent the Internet from being "open." However, they certainly will never make it "free" in the sense that you would like. (You seem to confuse "free speech" with "free beer." Sorry, but bandwidth isn't free.)

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Net Neutrality has been and will be good for the 'Net!

Ok, a quick math lesson indeed Random_Nut. I'm really going to have to dumb this down a bit.

When adults talk hypothetically we usually assume maximum utilization, the so called theoretical capacity.

How could one ever possible know exact pattern of usage? And better yet, WHY would anyone ever use that?

I think its safe to assume saturated (unless you would like me to pick a useless random number?) - YIKES !

Please go familiarize yourself with a basic science book.
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

2 edits

SuperWISP

Member

The headline above is simply false.

The FCC won't "announce new net neutrality rules" on Monday. It can't make rules without due process.

FCC Chairman Julius Genechowski will give a brief speech, at an outside group (not at the Commission), saying what he wants do do about the issue.

And, hopefully, he'll do the right thing and not try to push regulation. As he said to Congress on Thursday:
"When the market works and there's sufficient competition, then the FCC has no need to act. When the market isn't working, and the consumers could benefit from policies to promote competition, then the Commission must act."

--FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, September 17, 2009
The market is working, there's lots of competition, and the Internet is not being blocked or censored. Therefore, there's no reason for regulation.

skuv
@rr.com

skuv

Anon

Re: The headline above is simply false.

said by SuperWISP:

--FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, September 27, 2009
Wait, he said that in the future?!

Is that a side effect of the new network neutrality rules??? Awesome!
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

2 edits

SuperWISP

Member

Re: The headline above is simply false.

Wait, he said that in the future?!
No, my finger slipped. Now corrected.
AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD

AstroBoy to skuv

Member

to skuv
said by skuv :

said by SuperWISP:

--FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, September 27, 2009
Wait, he said that in the future?!

Is that a side effect of the new network neutrality rules??? Awesome!
By pointing that out you have changed the future!
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

cap

Ha, i got an idea to promote technology to hurry the hell up with evolution.. All monthly caps are only as high as the slowest connection being sold is capable of downloading 24/7 for a month.. Even with the soo called 56kbps dialup thats going to bug the crap outta some! What does that come up to anyways? 145,152,000 kbps per month? i think thats if you can actually download a full 56kbps per second, which you usually can't due to phone lines etc, I think 52kbps is the normal highest? of the dialups? Though realistically all analog dialup i've had just ran at 26.4kbps.. /sigh see, i'm rambling again.. Give me broadband or give me smoke signals!
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

SuperWISP

Member

Re: cap

I'd like to see evolution hurry the heck up as well. There are too many Neandertals in Washington, DC.
AndyCLT
join:2009-03-25
Charlotte, NC

AndyCLT

Member

Finally Regulating the Internet

About time there is some sort of Federal regulation on the internet!

You fools bitch and complain every time Comcast slows down your porn downloads and yet you bitch at people that know better than you and know that the internet needs Federal regulation.

None of you have an opinion on net neutrality unless you've managed to get your heads out of your asses.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Finally Regulating the Internet

and regulation always means HIGHER bills.

If my internet goes up, i hope you start paying for it because other wise i'll be right there with Brent (SuperWiSP) bitching about pricing.

We don't need regulation as it is fine the way it is. only GOOGLE wants it to be regulated. Maybe we should go to the FCC and have them Regulated, or maybe Fox will go after them and start suing the hell out of them for hosting Copyrighted shows/clips of their shows and movies. After all ViaCom has done it and we know Fox has a helleva lot more money.

whiteshp
join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

whiteshp

Member

Re: Finally Regulating the Internet

Fox do that now? Never...

All their indoctrination resources are spent right now to make sure the public knows a public health care option will lead to more abortion doctors being shot (that was said two nights ago!) and letting the elderly know God HATES public health care as much as he hates gays getting equal rights to marry.

White Zebra
@charter.com

White Zebra

Anon

who's right

Here is my question: why doesn't Google create its own network, provide any services they want and then talk about net neutrality? I would not want some one to come into my house and tell me what radio stations to tune into and how to listen or watch tv...