It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned.
Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.
The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.
It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself about backing tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.
“Some have expressed concerns about allowing private rights of action in court, failing to consider the impact on smaller [Internet service providers], that including interconnection goes too far or that the case-by-case approach does not go far enough and that the new conduct rule may not be as strong as the previous unreasonable discrimination rule,” she said.
The requested changes come as FCC lawyers are spending hours poring over the text of the rules.
In keeping with FCC procedural rules, the four other commissioners outside of Wheeler’s office got their first look at the rules just two and a half weeks ago. Now they are scrambling to make edits ahead of the vote on Thursday morning.
originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules
each company has regularly helped fund the Kaitz Dinner for years now. "We absolutely dispute the notion that our contributions have anything to do with currying favor with Commissioner Clyburn or any honoree," Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice told Politico. Fitzmaurice went on to blast any perceived conflict of interest as "purely fiction" and noted Comcast's history of backing the event.
The FCC's rules were challenged in federal court, and on January 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission's authority to regulate broadband Internet access service and upheld the Commission's judgment that Internet openness encourages broadband investment and that its absence could ultimately inhibit broadband deployment.
The court upheld the transparency rule, but vacated the no-blocking and no-unreasonable-discrimination rules. The court also invited the FCC to act to preserve a free and open Internet
originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: buster2010
How do u know if it's really net neutrality when no one is allowed to see the Regulations?
"[B]oth the service to the end user and to the edge provider are classified under Title II [of the Communications Act]," the proposal states.
This could get the FCC in trouble, Wood argues:
On the statutory definition question, as we noted in our earlier letter, services purportedly offered to a “remote” edge provider—when there is no physical connection between that edge provider and the carrier in question—are not services offered “directly” to the edge provider according to any precedent we could find. If there is no physical connection, and thus no obvious “direct” relationship between the carrier and the remote edge provider, it is hard to imagine how the service can qualify as a telecom service under Section 153(53) of the Act. That subsection stipulates that a telecom service must be offered “directly” to the recipient.
Likewise, as we also noted in our letter, even in the rare case where there is a direct interconnection with an edge provider this is likely private carriage. Such arrangements are negotiated on an individual basis with the broadband provider, not offered indiscriminately on a common carrier basis “to the public” under the same definition in subsection (53).
Even if the Commission could surmount these statutory barriers, the policy question remains: why would it want to? Our November 5 letter described the seemingly absurd results that could flow from recognizing such a relationship between edge providers and end-users’ broadband providers. Would such an approach suggest or even mandate that every single end point on the Internet is a customer of each and every ISP that provides service to any other single end point on the Internet? Put more colloquially, would every website in the world become a customer of any broadband Internet access service provider whose end-users visit that web
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I'll tell you what, corporations throw one hell of a dinner party. Not surprised she's scrambling to back peddle. I mean, who wants to miss out on a free all-you-can-eat oyster bar?
However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” which was created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways that companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet.
Those deals, known as “interconnection” arrangements, became a point of contention last year, when Netflix accused Comcast and other companies of erecting “Internet tolls” before easily passing Web traffic from one network to another.
Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue. “So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.
Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...
Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.
Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague "General Conduct" Rule
For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
According to the FCC's own "Fact Sheet," the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:
February 25, 2015 The U.S. government's plan to enact strong net neutrality regulations could embolden authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to seize more power over the Internet through the United Nations, a key Senate Republican warned Wednesday.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune of South Dakota argued that by claiming more authority over Internet access for net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission will undermine the ability of the U.S. to push back against international plots to control the Internet and censor content.
Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.
David Gross, a partner at the law firm Riley Wein who advises tech and telecom companies, agreed with Thune's warning.
The U.S. has consistently argued that the Internet is not a "telecommunication service" and therefore outside of the authority of the International Telecommunications Union, he explained. "If they were to find that Internet service is a telecommunications service, that would undoubtedly make the job of my successors much more complicated," Gross, a former ambassador to the ITU during the George W. Bush administration, said.
Regulating the internet like a utility company, says Pai, will threaten the kind of innovation we've taken for granted over the past 20 years. "Do you trust the federal government to make the Internet ecosystem more vibrant than it is today?" Pai asks. "Can you think of any regulated utility like the electric company or water company that is as innovative as the Internet?"
originally posted by: wantsome
I already have plans to cancel my internet service if this goes though. I lived the first 20 years of my life without it I can do it again.
Now Wheeler has turned around and mandated that these firms, which have raped you for a decade with their privileged access to your location, must provision for any enhanced service, such as Netflix, so they can provide it to everyone -- whether you as a customer want to buy it or not.
This is going to radically increase these monopolists costs -- and without any check and balance in the form of competition guess who's going to get the bill for that, plus a nasty markup?
originally posted by: jefwane
What in this regulation prevents the ISPs from raising prices on the consumers due to this. Is metered data with overage or throttling like is common in wireless what we should expect for the future in broadband? If so, how does one justify a business model that uses multimedia ads that could potentially cost their users big bucks from something that runs them over there alotment. Who should be the ones paying for the data from those ads that run automatically? The consumer, the site, or the advertiser.
Regulated utilities still charge usage to the consumer. Your water usage is billed in gallons; electricity is billed in kilowatt hours. I think this could possibly put an end to unlimited internet.