Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday May 10, @11:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the corporate-schadenfreude dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/fcc-explicitly-prohibits-fast-lanes-closing-possible-net-neutrality-loophole/

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


Original Submission

Related Stories

Cable Lobby Vows “Years of Litigation” to Avoid Bans on Blocking and Throttling 17 comments

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/fcc-democrats-schedule-net-neutrality-vote-making-cable-lobbyists-sad-again/

The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled an April 25 vote to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump.

"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the Internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said today. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open Internet."
[...]
In a filing with the FCC, Turner wrote that "ISPs have been incredibly bullish about the future of their businesses precisely because of the network investments they are making" and that the companies rarely, if ever, mention the impact of FCC regulation during calls with investors.

"We believe that the ISPs' own words to their shareholders, and to industry analysts through channels governed by the SEC, should be afforded significantly more weight than evidence-free tropes, vague threats, dubious aggregate capital expenditure tallies, or nonsensical math jargon foisted on the Commission this docket or elsewhere," Turner wrote.

FCC Restores Net Neutrality Rules that Ban Blocking and Throttling in 3-2 Vote 7 comments

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.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Friday May 10, @11:39AM

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 10, @11:39AM (#1356431) Journal

    We'll see if the ISPs behave or if they push back or drag their feet in (re-)compliance. This order is a big step in clarifying what the rules are.

    There is a better analysis of the final version of the FCC's order [fcc.gov] which has been posted by Stanford university:

    The final Order says clearly, “We clarify that a BIAS 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.” (para. 499)

    That means an ISP can’t provide preferential treatment to select apps or categories of apps such as providing more bandwidth, reducing delay, or guaranteeing quality of service.

    That’s important because good performance is vital to almost everything on the internet, and ISPs shouldn’t be the ones deciding which apps get to work well and which do not.

    Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, Initial Analysis of the FCC’s 2024 Open Internet Order [stanford.edu].

    Also at The Register:

    The final version of the order now contains text that says: "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 technology that sparked those concerns is network slicing, a feature of 5G enabled with the rollout of full 5G Standalone (5G SA) networks. This can be likened to virtualization for networks, allowing multiple logical networks, each with different characteristics, to operate over the same infrastructure.

    Some experts expressed doubts that network slicing was really going to be used by telcos in the way net neutrality advocates feared, but the final text appears to have reassured some that this has now been avoided.

    The Register, FCC slams banhammer on 5G fast lanes [theregister.com].

    Ars Techica was fine in its day, but those good old days are decades past. They're not investing enough to either replace the good people the had writing at the turn of the century or to make up for having put m$ komprimats in their places.

    While the FCC's order, "Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet", links to a plain text version and a PDF script, it also links to a non-standard, proprietary format (one of the .docx formats) which has no place in public settings. The FCC ought to have provided either regular HTML there or else, if a word processing format is needed, an actual open standard like ODF.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 10, @11:46AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 10, @11:46AM (#1356432) Journal

    Net Neutrality was one of the things that Obama got right. And, one of the things Trump got totally wrong. Of course O'biden is going to copy Obama, but, in this case, I'm glad he does.

    Fast lanes, slow lanes, whatever they want to call it, is nothing more than exploitation.

    I'll remind everyone that the US government has paid the telcos repeatedly to build out the internet, and the telcos have simply pocketed that money. We, the taxpayers, have paid for fast internet, again and again. We don't deserve to be exploited again, on top of the repeated thefts.

    Your ISP should be a dumb pipe. However much capacity the pipe has, it should be utilized by the paying customers with no discrimination. And, we need to continue pressuring the telcos and ISPs to build out the internet. I'm happy as can be that I finally have something worthy of the name "broadband". But, millions of Americans still don't have that. Congress needs to kick some ass, and bring the entire country up to date. Start be redefining "broadband" as 100 meg, which makes much of DSL/ADSL obsolete. My former ISP couldn't provide anything better than 10 meg, and that was only on an exceptionally good day.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by canopic jug on Friday May 10, @12:27PM (5 children)

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 10, @12:27PM (#1356436) Journal

      I'll remind everyone that the US government has paid the telcos repeatedly to build out the internet, and the telcos have simply pocketed that money. We, the taxpayers, have paid for fast internet, again and again. We don't deserve to be exploited again, on top of the repeated thefts.

      Yes, that has been mentioned here and elsewhere, repeatedly, yet it still hasn't sunk in at the political level. As of about a decade ago, the US taxpayers have already shelled out over $400 billion for broad band infrastructure which was never delivered [irregulators.org] (warning for PDF script). It happens again and again with more or less the same culprits stealing the money with impunity and no politicians even calling them out for it.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday May 10, @04:25PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 10, @04:25PM (#1356456)

        no politicians even calling them out for it

        I can't imagine why [opensecrets.org] they'd all keep their mouth shut.

        Some things to note about this:
        1. It's bipartisan and vast. It would be much easier to compile a list of federal politicians that aren't on the take from the telecoms. Specifically, 90 out of 100 senators, and 389 out of 435 representatives, and both major-party presidential candidates are recipients of telecom largesse.
        2. Buying politicians has an ROI of something like 40000%. Of course they're going to spend whatever it takes.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @04:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @04:48PM (#1356460)
          (from news://rec.humor.funny/ long ago; date & full URI lost)

          -----

          WARRANTY CARD ON PURCHASED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL[tm]

          Dear Special Interest,

          Congratulations on the purchase of your genuine Government Official[tm].
          With regular maintenance your Government Official[tm] should provide
          you with a lifetime of sweetheart deals, insider information,
          preferential legislation and other fine services.

          Before you begin using your product, we would appreciate it if you
          would take the time to fill out this customer service card. This
          information will not be sold to any other party, and will be used
          solely to aid us in better fulfilling your future needs in political
          influence.

          1. Which of our fine products did you buy?
          __ President
          __ Vice-President
          __ Senator
          __ Congressman
          __ Governor
          __ Cabinet Secretary - Commerce
          __ Cabinet Secretary - Other
          __ Other Elected Official (please specify)
          __ Other Appointed Official (please specify)

          2. How did you hear about your Government Official[tm]? Please check
          all that apply.
          __ TV ad.
          __ Magazine / newspaper ad.
          __ Shared jail cell with.
          __ Former law partner of.
          __ Unindicted co-conspirator with.
          __ Arkansas crony of.
          __ Procured for.
          __ Related to.
          __ Recommended by lobbyist.
          __ Recommended by organized crime figure.
          __ Frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories. (On Internet.)
          __ Frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories. (Elsewhere.)
          __ Spoke at fundraiser at my temple.
          __ Solicited bribe from me.
          __ Attempted to seduce me.

          3. How do you expect to use your Government Official[tm]? (Please
          check all that apply.)
          __ Obtain lucrative government contracts.
          __ Have my prejudices turned into law.
          __ Obtain diplomatic concessions.
          __ Obtain trade concessions.
          __ Have embargo lifted from own nation / ally.
          __ Have embargo imposed on enemy / rival nation / religious infidels.
          __ Obtain patronage job for self / spouse / mistress.
          __ Forestall military action against self / allies.
          __ Instigate military action against internal enemies / aggressors /
          targets for future conquest.
          __ Impede criminal / civil investigation of self / associates / spouse.
          __ Obtain pardon for self / associates / spouse.
          __ Inflict punitive legislation on class enemies / rivals / hated ethnic
          groups.
          __ Inflict punitive regulation on business competitors / environmental
          exploiters / capitalist pigs.

          4. What factors influenced your purchase? (Please check all that
          apply.)
          __ Performance of currently owned model.
          __ Reputation.
          __ Price.
          __ Appearance.
          __ Party affiliation.
          __ Professed beliefs of Government Official[tm].
          __ Actual beliefs of Government Official[tm].
          __ Orders from boss / superior officer / foreign government.
          __ Blackmail.
          __ Celebrity endorsement.

          5. Is this product intended as a replacement for a currently owned
          Government Official[tm]? ______

          If you answered "yes," please indicate your reason(s) for changing
          models.
          __ Excessive operating / maintenance costs.
          __ Needs have grown beyond capacity of current model.
          __ Defect in current model:
          __ Dead.
          __ Senile.
          __ Indicted.
          __ Convicted.
          __ Resigned in disgrace.
          __ Switched parties / beliefs.
          __ Outbribed by competing interest.

          Thank you for your valuable time. Always remember: in choosing a
          Government Official[tm] you have chosen the best politician that money
          can buy.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @10:03PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @10:03PM (#1356493)

        no politicians even calling them out for it.

        Why should they? All this trash talk against the "politicians" is bullshit when reelection is virtually guaranteed. Why change anything? There is only one way to fix this, but nobody is interested in hearing it...

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Saturday May 11, @12:53AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 11, @12:53AM (#1356506) Journal

          There is only one way to fix this, but nobody is interested in hearing it...

          You're one of the not interested else you would be talking about the fix rather than talking about the nobodies.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11, @04:08AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11, @04:08AM (#1356522)

            The obvious fix is to vote for different politicians, stop reelecting the same old corrupt ones for 40 years.

            Now it's your turn to deny it.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Friday May 10, @02:27PM (1 child)

    by Username (4557) on Friday May 10, @02:27PM (#1356449)

    I have a cellphone, and no matter which carrier I choose, they all allow spam and scam calls. So I have a voip provider that blocks all the unwanted calls, then i uninstalled all the carrier voice handling apps. Very peaceful. Now I hope my voip provider will fly under the radar of net neutrality.

    Though I do wish my cell carrier could block those calls, and I wouldn't need the voip.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Friday May 10, @03:23PM

      by VLM (445) on Friday May 10, @03:23PM (#1356453)

      So I have

      I shut off the ringer. Voice service is dead.

      In somewhat more detail, my main system ringtone is playing a ringtone of 'silence', and my wife and kids and rest of my family individually have custom ringtones that are normal ringtones. So anyone can call my phone, which plays a ringtone of silence except my family members which play a real ringtone. This is easy on Android, probably also possible on Apple phones.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by EJ on Friday May 10, @02:55PM (16 children)

    by EJ (2452) on Friday May 10, @02:55PM (#1356450)

    I don't think Trump was really against net neutrality. He just made the mistake of delegating to the awful Ajit Pai.

    The biggest problem I have with politicians is that most are too rich to relate to their constituents or to be impacted by their own policies.

    As silly as it seems, the McDonald's ice cream machine controversy is about as relatable as I can remember from a president.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday May 10, @04:37PM (4 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 10, @04:37PM (#1356457)

      Donald Trump really doesn't have policy positions besides "I should be in charge of everything, and everybody else should have to do what I want them to, and if they don't start hurting them until they change their minds". To demonstrate the point: In 2012, Mitt Romney ran on a Republican platform that was a little over 60 pages long, full of policy points and wonkery. By the 2020 convention, with Trump's role cemented in the party, they skipped that part, and just adopted 1-page document that basically said "rah rah Donald Trump is great".

      This makes sense when you understand his by all appearances sincere belief that he's the smartest person on the planet about everything, a belief that his core base of supporters seem to share.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Ox0000 on Friday May 10, @07:30PM (1 child)

        by Ox0000 (5111) on Friday May 10, @07:30PM (#1356479)

        Politics went from "we can both win because everyone gets better" to "you too can win if you make some minor concessions" over "I have to win" all the way into "not only do I have to win, you have to lose" and finally into the current "The other side must lose, even if that means I lose as well".

        The age of statesmen is over. What we seem have in congress today are folks concerned with building "brand" so that they can milk it post-official-dom, rather than people who want to actually govern.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 10, @09:34PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 10, @09:34PM (#1356490)

          Among other reasons for their "brand-building" behavior: They can make a lot more bank as a post-Congress lobbyist and/or media pundit than they can on a mere congressional salary. So the incentives are not actually towards being re-elected.

          But also: This isn't the most divided US politics has ever been. For that, you have to look at the late 1850's, when members of Congress were routinely armed in the chambers and sometimes drew their weapons, and in one incident a senator got beaten over the head by a political rival on the Senate floor.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by darkfeline on Friday May 10, @09:42PM (1 child)

        by darkfeline (1030) on Friday May 10, @09:42PM (#1356491) Homepage

        This is a textbook example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I'm sure even the most ignorant person in the US has heard of "build the wall" (but I'm prepared to be disappointed).

        --
        Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday May 11, @03:34PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Saturday May 11, @03:34PM (#1356546)

          He did say "build the wall". And then he didn't do it. Which means it wasn't important enough for him to really want to build it.

          Politicians do that kind of thing all the time. On the campaign trail: "$X is my top priority!" Once in office: "Well, we couldn't do $X, because hem haw hem haw ..." Back on the campaign trail: "$X is my top priority!" Once in office: "Well, we can't do $X, because hem haw hem haw ..." Repeat for as long as the public will still be suckered in, then retire from politics to the more comfortable life of a lobbyist or a power behind the throne.

          And before you say "He's not a politician", the moment he announced his first campaign for president he became a politician. He might be a politician you like or support, but he's definitely a politician now.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Friday May 10, @06:13PM (10 children)

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 10, @06:13PM (#1356465)

      I don't think Trump was really against net neutrality.

      He would have sided with whoever was holding the big bag of money [politico.com].

      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @06:21PM (9 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @06:21PM (#1356467)

        :-) Yeah... as if the rest of them don't!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @07:58PM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @07:58PM (#1356483)
          uh huh. now read the link.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @09:54PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @09:54PM (#1356492)

            I did... Trump's big "offense" is revealing their world to us muggles, doing out in the open what is normally done behind closed doors.. That doesn't seem to matter anymore, they still get reelected, just means nobody is serious about it

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 11, @12:57AM (5 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 11, @12:57AM (#1356507) Journal

              I did... Trump's big "offense" is revealing their world to us muggles, doing out in the open what is normally done behind closed doors.. That doesn't seem to matter anymore, they still get reelected, just means nobody is serious about it

              In other words, they get reelected because they do these things behind closed doors. It's not rocket science.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11, @04:18AM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11, @04:18AM (#1356523)

                Since that is the way you want to look at it, yes, discretion is key, or it was. Whether it's behind closed doors or not, nobody cares how corrupt their favorite politician is as long as they think they'll get a piece

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 11, @10:49PM (3 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 11, @10:49PM (#1356590) Journal

                  Since that is the way you want to look at it, yes, discretion is key, or it was. Whether it's behind closed doors or not, nobody cares how corrupt their favorite politician is as long as they think they'll get a piece

                  The point of closed doors is that someone does care - else they won't bother hiding it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @01:31AM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 12, @01:31AM (#1356607)

                    If people cared, we would have a completely different government, and your Trump wouldn't be so famously infamous, outside of the entertainment section, and Biden would be a mid level manager in a small bank

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 12, @06:15AM (1 child)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 12, @06:15AM (#1356626) Journal

                      If people cared, politicians would be hiding their corruption

                      FTFY. I tire of hearing the same dumbass narratives. Whining at me about how people aren't perfect doesn't help anyone.

                      Trump's big "offense" is revealing their world to us muggles, doing out in the open what is normally done behind closed doors..

                      In other words, Trump supporters care even less about corruption than muggles do. Trump's "big offense" is really a big offense. It takes a peculiar combination of stupidity and mendacity to treat a brazen exercise of corruption and hypocrisy as merely "revealing".

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @05:15AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 13, @05:15AM (#1356761)

                        You didn't "fix" anything. If people cared, politicians wouldn't be able to hide their corruption, we would have transparency

                        It takes a peculiar combination of stupidity and mendacity to treat a brazen exercise of corruption and hypocrisy as merely "revealing".

                        Not me, babe. That's how the voters treat it, very lightly. The numbers are even more "revealing", confirming everything I've said. Every complaint you have about the government rests on the voters.

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11, @02:27AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 11, @02:27AM (#1356515)
              including you, poser.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @06:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @06:25PM (#1356468)

    There is no "net neutrality" without it...

    Where the hell is congress on this? The FCC serves the whims of the president

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @08:13PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 10, @08:13PM (#1356484)

    I think we all want things like games, VOIP, and video to work as fast as possible so they don't glitch; but we don't want to pay for QoS on an app basis and we definitely don't want it only available to big companies, and we don't want some idiot abusing it so their script laden ad-infested web pages load faster.

    How do you spell that out in legalese that translates in to technical action that satisfies all stake-holders in a reasonable way?

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Ox0000 on Friday May 10, @11:20PM

      by Ox0000 (5111) on Friday May 10, @11:20PM (#1356502)

      Here's a first stab at it, let's iterate on this and see where we can get?

      My suggestion: An "Act for Neutrality And Lawfulness" (I'm sure some staffer can come up with a good backronym for that one)

      §1 The operator of the equipment through which the data flows shall treat all data equally, without regard for content, source, destination, purpose, volume, nor for any other discriminator, except for the single and only purpose of ensuring and guaranteeing the operations of Emergency Services.
      §2 It shall be illegal for the operator of the equipment through which the communication data flows to alter the quality of service of the equipment to the detriment of its subscribers in exchange for compensation in any way, shape, or form.
      §3 Punishment for violations of this law will be levied directly and personally against the highest echelons of the operator's officers, defined as the 15% highest compensated officers of the equipment operator. It shall be illegal for equipment operators to use non-persons as such officers, on punishment of corporate death.
      §4 The officers of the operator of the equipment through which the data flows shall be personally liable and responsible for adherence to this law. It shall be illegal for an operator of the equipment to compensate a liable officer for any damages imposed upon them resulting from non-adherence to this law as determined by a court.
      §5 All such officers shall be required to explicitly acknowledge this section of this act and provide a written confirmation record on file to the National Archives Administration to be retained for at least 30 years after the officer leaves that office.
      §6 This law explicitly enables lower jurisdiction to put measures, laws, and regulations in place to provide stronger guarantees that an operator of the equipment through which the data flows shall treat all data equally, as long these do not weaken those as defined in this law.

      §1: what you should do.
      §2: what you cannot do.
      §3: the head honchos are personally liable, and attempts to shield them are illegal, also, they have to be targettable persons, to prevent CEO's being their own LLC who are hired as a 'contractor' by an ISP.
      §4: the incentive to not fuck up, you cannot be (re)compensated by the company if you as a head honcho get convicted; it's on you, forever, bit like student debt: there is no escape.
      §5: you can only be a head honcho if you sign this piece of paper everyone can ask for.
      §6: non-pre-emption, states or munis can make this more stringent

      It's not a good final version, but it's a start...

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by ChrisMaple on Saturday May 11, @02:18AM (1 child)

    by ChrisMaple (6964) on Saturday May 11, @02:18AM (#1356512)

    It looks like the FCC is making it illegal to charge for better service, thereby removing the incentive to improve.

    FWIW, Runaway1956, above, states that a minimum for broadband should be 100 Mbps. Where does he want his diamond-encrusted Ferari delivered?

    • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Saturday May 11, @06:36PM

      by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 11, @06:36PM (#1356569) Journal

      Im happy I don't live in the good ol' U.S. of A.

      My network provider is constantly upgrading equipment. We went from 10 Mbps to 60 Mbps recently, for the same price.

      You know what drives this improvement? Competition.

      Don't drink the Kool-aid. Higher prices do not drive innovation.

(1)