Broadband lobby groups prepare lawsuit, calling rules a "net fatality"
The Federal Communications Commission voted 3–2 to impose net neutrality rules today, restoring the common-carrier regulatory framework enforced during the Obama era and then abandoned while Trump was president.
The rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking and throttling lawful content and ban paid prioritization. Cable and telecom companies plan to fight the rules in court, but they lost a similar battle during the Obama era when judges upheld the FCC's ability to regulate ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.
[...] FCC Republicans blasted the Democratic majority today. "The Internet in America has thrived in the absence of 1930s, command-and-control regulations by the government," Commissioner Brendan Carr said.
Carr, who spoke for more than half an hour, described how the FCC's net neutrality decisions were allegedly swayed by President Obama in 2015 and by President Biden this year. "The FCC has never been able to come up with a credible reason or policy rationale for Title II. It is all just shifting sands, and that is because the agency is doing what it's been told to do by the executive branch," Carr said.
Carr also blamed judges for giving the FCC too much power.
[...] In the weeks before the vote, some consumer advocates criticized what they see as a loophole in the rules that would let ISPs give faster speeds to certain types of applications as long as application providers don't have to pay for special treatment. They say the FCC should explicitly prohibit ISPs from speeding up applications instead of only enforcing a no-throttling rule that forbids slowing applications down. Others say the rules are just as strong as those enforced during the Obama era.
[...] Reinstating Title II also gives the FCC more authority to monitor Internet service outages, the agency said.
Related Stories
The Federal Communications Commission clarified its net neutrality rules to prohibit more kinds of fast lanes.
While the FCC voted to restore net neutrality rules on April 25, it didn't release the final text of the order until yesterday. The final text has some changes compared to the draft version released a few weeks before the vote.
[...] Advocates warned that mobile carriers could use the 5G technology called "network slicing" to create fast lanes for categories of apps, like online gaming, and charge consumers more for plans that speed up those apps. This isn't just theoretical: Ericsson, a telecommunications vendor that sells equipment to the major carriers, has said the carriers could get more money from gamers by charging "up to $10.99 more for a guaranteed gaming experience on top of their 5G monthly subscription."
[...] The final FCC order released yesterday addresses that complaint.
"We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's final order said.
The "impair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is banned because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service."
[...] In one FCC filing, AT&T promoted network slicing as a way "to better meet the needs of particular business applications and consumer preferences than they could over a best-efforts network that generally treats all traffic the same." AT&T last week started charging mobile customers an extra $7 per month for faster wireless data speeds, but this would likely comply with net neutrality rules because the extra speed applies to all broadband traffic rather than just certain types of online applications.
[...] Broadband providers plan to sue the FCC in an effort to block the regulation.
Previously on SoylentNews:
FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules that Ban Blocking and Throttling in 3-2 Vote - 20240426
Cable Lobby Vows "Years of Litigation" to Avoid Bans on Blocking and Throttling - 20240404
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday April 27 2024, @04:17PM
( https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/24/net-neutrality-fcc-5g/ [washingtonpost.com] )
compiling...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tokolosh on Saturday April 27 2024, @04:27PM
Less than 100 Mb/s? Then you can't call it "Broadband"!
Block, throttle or otherwise discriminate? Then you can't call it "Internet"
Call it, say, AOL, and forgo all the legal protections, government subsidies, tax breaks, access rights, pole and right-of-way privileges, and you can discriminate all you want.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Saturday April 27 2024, @04:36PM
Short version: The ISPs want to be able to go to Netflix, Amazon, Disney, etc and say "Nice streaming service you have there, shame if something were to happen to it, we can guarantee you won't have any problems if you paid us a bunch of extra cash". And that's exactly what they did the moment that became legal. There were even documented cases of streaming services who said "no" getting throttled until the moment they paid up.
Which of course drove up fees for streaming services accordingly, so that now the cost of streaming is often higher than the cost of old-school cable used to be. And by a complete coincidence, more than a few of the ISPs engaged in this shakedown are themselves cable providers and thus direct competitors of the streaming services, a fact that I'm sure is in no way influencing their behavior because that would be illegal.
Of course the ISPs are mad about losing their cash cow. Screw 'em, as far as I'm concerned.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 27 2024, @07:15PM
Three guesses why...
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday April 28 2024, @05:05AM (1 child)
> Carr, who spoke for more than half an hour,
That rhymes somewhat, but maybe Mr. Carr should have spoken elsewhere first:
At the FTC, asking for broadband provider monopolies to be broken up.
Then come made his second speech at the FCC. Then it would be better received.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cereal_burpist on Monday April 29 2024, @03:19AM
Thanks for that Carr analogy ;-)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday April 29 2024, @05:17PM
I just received an email from my future self in 2025.
My water company wants to charge me different rates depending upon how I use the water coming in to my home.
Water used for drinking and cooking would be billed at a higher rate than water used for other porpoises. Watering the lawn, flushing the toilet or bathing would be billed at cheaper rates. Even though all this water comes in through the same pipes.
They are installing mandatory blockages at the water meter so that they can create water "fast lanes" where you can get higher flow rates of water for an additional fee. They say it is worth paying extra in order to have a higher water flow rate. Higher pressure showers, and other benefits.
They don't care how much water I use. They just want me to pay more for it if I'm enjoying it more, or my survival depends upon it.
They say this is just normal business and I should expect to pay more for better water service.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.