
UPDATED: Amidst criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, the FCC today adopted new rules designed to ensure that broadband service remains open to all. The five-member commission’s 3-2 vote went down along party lines, with the 3 Democrats supporting and the 2 Republicans opposing the measures that will prohibit broadband providers from blocking access to lawful content and discriminating against sites, giving priority to some over others. Offenders will face fines and injunctions. “Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. “These rules will increase certainty in the marketplace; spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks, and contribute to a 21st century job-creation engine in the United States.”
Under the new rules, Internet providers will still have room to manage their traffic but have to disclose their practices to the consumers. Also, they are stricter for wired Internet providers while giving leeway to wireless providers. In a statement, the Motion Picture Association of America applauded today’s ruling while stressing the need for protection of intellectual property on the Internet. “Combating IP theft is especially critical in an online world,” MPAA president and interim CEO Bob Pisano said. “Consistent with statements by the Obama Administration and recent law enforcement initiatives, the Commission understands that stemming the rising tide of online theft requires active participation by Internet service providers. Notably, Internet service providers may take reasonable measures to address copyright infringement without running afoul of open Internet rules. Under no circumstances should open Internet rules be used to shield copyright infringers.”
WGAE issued a harsh statement criticizing the new rules for being ‘tepid’ and not addressing wireless discrimination. “A compromise means the parties to a dispute reach agreement. Here, no one has agreed to anything. These tepid rules will be challenged in court and in Congress, and they fail in the most fundamental ways – permitting paid prioritization and all manner of discrimination in wireless. Our members write most of what people watch on television and in the movie theaters and increasingly, online. Today’s FCC vote will diminish our members’ ability to create and distribute innovative content and audiences’ ability to watch the content of their choice.”
WGAW was more measured in its response while taking a shot at the pending Comcast-NBC Universal merger. “The Order approved today by the FCC is not all we had hoped for, but it does provide a regulatory platform that keeps alive the fight to preserve a free and open Internet,” the guild said. “The WGAW is encouraged by Chairman Genachowski’s announcement of rules that purport to maintain an open Internet, but the devil is in the details. We fully expect that the Chairman’s stated intention to prohibit paid prioritization will be clearly reflected in the language of the final rules… Today’s Order does not answer the question of whether huge conglomerates will control news, entertainment, and information on the Internet, but it takes significant steps in the right direction… the Guild remains focused on the most immediate threat to the future of media – the merger of Comcast and NBCU. This merger must not be approved without strong conditions that protect competition, diversity, and independence.”
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.


“Along party lines”
Are Republicans seriously on the wrong side of every fucking issue ever? It’s absolutely absurd that people of all political sides don’t FULLY support net neutrality.
in reality this is merely a massive power grab by the fcc and the administration that appointed them. there is currently no problem or need that screams for internet regulation. this is a giant trojan horse that would end up costing the consumer as costs are passed along by businesses. additionally, the supreme court has previously ruled that the fcc has not the authority to regulate the internet, so they will probably do the same in this instance when a case finally makes its way before them.
I’ll take the FCC over a Verizon power grab any day. And as for all you people below who don’t seem to know much about net neutrality, you do realize this is the framework & ideology which has been operating effectively since the 90′s.
“Net Neutrality is for fascists” Yes, making sure internet providers give equal access to websites is totally fascist. Brilliant.
Just because something hasn’t begun to happen, doesn’t mean you don’t look down the road.
It’s necessary. Just not this version.
Completely agree. Trojan horse is a terrific name for this move. The one thing that people should pay attetion to is the word ‘rules’ and internet. These morons at the FCC lol.
Oh the irony of your question. Talk about being wrong on every position known to man.
If a liberal can destroy something that already works in the name of Orwellian Progressive ideology, you can bet the current crop of Communists in power will try to do it.
“Net Neutrality” is the biggest misnomer next to the “Fairness Doctrine.”
Be afraid of PC group think. Freedoms are being eroded and the gullible believe it’s for the “public good.” Germany did the same thing in the 30s and the Soviets before them.
First off, it’s my sincere hope that in 2011, conservatives find some other card to play other than the Hitler Card as their standard response to EVERY piece of legislation.
Second of all, what exact “freedom” do you actually think you’re losing here? From where I see things, explictly prohibiting IP providers from blocking access to lawful websites seems like a no brainer. For instance, without net neutrality, what would stop a politically motivated IP owner from blocking access to political websites like Huffington Post or Drudge. You see, that would actually be a lessening of “freedom”.
The potential for corporate shenanigans like we see in broadcast media to spill into the internet is something that should be nipped in the bud. My guess is that you really have no concept of either “freedom” or what net neutrality is actually supposed to do. Like a slavish dolt, you simply follow Glenn Beck and regurgitate here.
“Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.”
Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being “data driven” in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.
It wasn’t long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet’s privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html
1984 is finally here.
The “needs of the market” means that if I use an ISP to get on the web, that I’ll be able to access any website that is legally operating that I want to surf. There isn’t a single “market need” in which I’ll have to pay an extra fee to access certain sites, or where ISP’s provide faster access to favored sites (or block the sites of competitors).
The idea that businesses will find the internet too cumbersome to deal with and thus fold jobs is ludicrous. What are they going to do, go back to brick and mortar model as the primary option? That ship has sailed, that train has left the station.
The consensus on insulating the internet from regulation involves the CONTENT of the internet, not the ACCESS to it.
Are you happy with your cable provider? Your wireless provider? My guess is no. That’s all thanks to deregulation — and in fairness to the GOP, there were many, many Democrats who boarded that train in the 80s, too, Ted Kennedy included. You let big business have no oversight, nothing positive is given to the consumers. Look at Wall Street. No, complete government control is a loser, too, but there is a medium, and one thing we know from 30 years of deregulation is that it has not resulted in a wider marketplace, but instead a narrower one.
Want another example. Deregulation of the radio duopoly rules actually resulted in most radio markets only having at most three companies owning every single station in a market. Clear Channel owns 7 stations in Denver alone, for instance.
If people are happy with the “competition” in radio, just wait until the internet gets the same treatment.
“Are you happy with your cable provider? Your wireless provider? My guess is no”
If you aren’t happy with your cable or wireless provider, then CHANGE providers! Nobody is forcing you to choose your cable/wireless/internet provider!
If an internet provider wanted to block or move a site that I wanted to see, then I change providers! Let the consumer decide!
Todd_Gack: Except that most cable or internet providers have a regional *monopoly.* Time Warner is the only real cable provider in Southern California. Same deal goes for other companies. And who’s to say a different cable provider wouldn’t be equally bad? When you have only two or three companies operating in a business with an extremely high barrier to entry, you don’t have market capitalism–you’ve got an easily manipulated duopoly, or oligopoly–as anyone who’s taken Microeconomics 101 knows.
What Net Neutrality–and Jesus, I can’t understand how conservatives would be opposed to this–actually does is ensures that no matter *who’s* providing the internet service, *all websites* load at the same speed. If the Obama administration were *really* interested in a takeover, they’d oppose net neutrality and ensure that liberal sites loaded quickly while conservative websites were mysteriously…delayed. You understand now why net neutrality is a good thing? Seriously. Talk to Vincent Cerf, talk to a computer scientists, talk to anyone who actually works on the internet for a living. Or, better yet, to those who helped build it.
I would have zero issues being blocked from The Huffington Post or The Drudge Report. I guess that is why I listen to KNX1070 CBS News Radio ALL DAY. Straight news. I analyze it myself.
But what if I want to read HuffPo or Drudge? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s okay for ISPs to stop others from accessing it. I hate Fox News, but I would never think it’s okay for their website to blocked from those who want to read it.
Flip your attitude around on yourself: What if your favorite sites were suddenly blocked or were loaded at a snail’s pace because an ISP had the power to do so with no regulation? Would you like that? Of course you wouldn’t.
We are glad you are willing to give up your speech rights. Just don’t speak for the rest of us in doing so.
net neutrality is for fascists
Corporate censorship of websites is for fascists. Net neutrality insures that someone like Comcast won’t block access to lawfully operating websites because they have political content Comcast disapproves of.
Then simply change internet providers! It’s really not that hard. If your internet provider is doing some shady stuff like that, then take matters into your own hands and find one that won’t do that.
Yes, corporate consolidation has offered us a plethora of choices!
And yet blogs such as this continue to flourish and more are created every day to suit any number of tastes and demands. How soon will the FCC decide that free speech is too free? This power grab is downright scary.
12/21/10: The day Americans said good-bye to their internet freedoms. This is only the beginning.
Net Neutrality is a silly concept. Service Providers have to constantly balance the needs of their customers versus cost of providing certain services. It’s not easy and adding a bunch of government regulation on top of it is going to make it that much harder. On top of that, there was little need for government intervention here. Also, not that it apparently matters to members of the executive branch, the courts had already told the FCC they do NOT have this authority.
So, if there was “little need for government intervention”, what EXACTLY is the problem with making sure that IP providers can’t block access to lawfully operating websites. Oh, is the problem because some IP providers were beginning to toy with the idea of charging different rates for different levels of access to the Web?
In cyberspace, the needs of the customers involves being able to go onto the web and find any website they wish. If I want to get on Deadline Hollywood, I shouldn’t have to pay some sort of special access fee to get it, or be denied access because the IP provider has some sort of exclusivity arrangment with, say, Movie City News.
Only in the conservative mindset is a bill that insures access for all considered a loss of “freedom”.
Quick, name a government program that is well run.
The information age just died.
NASA. Want another? The local Fire Department. Want another? Social Security, which my Republican mother lived off of in her final five years of life even while railing against Democrats for being socialists. Want another? My local Police Department. Want another? The bail-out of GM — kept a Fortune 500 company from imploding, saved maybe 10,000 U.S. jobs, and by the time it’s all over, the taxpayers will make a decent return on their money. I could go on, but I believe I’ve answered your question.
Fail and triple fail. GM was a bailout of union pensions, not the company. Chapter 11 would have been a better recourse. Try again. Try and find a government program that is well run and doesn’t soak up billions from the tax payers. Good luck. Oh and most police and fire departments are under local control and taxes with the citizens at least having some degree of control.
A well run government program.Hmmm,seems like it would take an eternity to find one of those.Well,yeah it would.They don’t exist.
No, the courts most certainly did not.
Try going back and reading what they did say and how that has changed.
As usual, the WGAW is silent.
“Combating IP theft is especially critical in an online world.” Uh, yeah, ‘k Bobby the P. Theft, right . . .
Let’s see . . . the MPAA loves the idea of ISPs having more options to “monitor” private traffic over the lines rented by us, the annoyances (AKA, “consummers”) and to strangle to a standstill the transmissions of large files such as, say, bootlegged copies of Knight and Day.
And . . . the MPAA is in bedsheet tent-makin’ love with the studios who want to make sure that them darned Intro-netz can be hired with big studio bucks to quickly and profitably deliver (so far) un-bootleggable pay-or-play-per-view “content” (see “Knight” above) into the flat screened homes of the eager movie watchin’ public.
So . . . just wanna make sure that authorized stuff gets through, baby, good ‘n legal. Cool.
However . . . them big-bucks studios are already part of an ever decreasing bund of “entertainment” providers, many of which have as a part of their corporate portfolios ISPs.
Want . . . to download a legal copy of a movie you’ve purchased from a vendor that is unloved by one of the studios and suddenly your over-priced internet connection fails to connect. Wanna download a legal free song from an Indie band’s site (I suppose somebody must want to)? Oh, gee, sorry, your Time-Warner Cable connection can’t quite make that happen. NetFlix gets in bad with Warners? Hey, how come I can’t get National Lampoon ‘Dorm Daze II’ to play?
Thinking back, the Internet was sure kinda fun while it lasted . . .
The FCC does not have this authority? Hogwash. Here’s the language from the Comcast ruling several of you here have butchered:
“In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider’s network management practices. Acknowledging that it has no express statutory authority over such practices, the Commission relies on section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, which authorizes the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” The Commission may exercise this “ancillary” authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is “reasonably ancillary to the … effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.” The Commission has failed to make that showing. It relies principally on several Congressional statements of policy, but under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create “statutorily mandated responsibilities.” The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast’s network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast’s petition for review and vacate the challenged order.”
Wow. Amazing what happens when you actually read: the court recognizes the FCC’s authority regarding these issues, but found the FCC lacking in this particular instance against Comcast due to its “failing to make that showing.” In other words, nice try but come back again and we’ll look at it then.
Maybe it’s time to update the Communications Act of 1934. We’ve introduced television and satellite communications, among other new technologies to disseminate electronic signals, since the Communications Act of 1934 was passed.
Knock Knock Congress. Is there anyone home?
Who turned off the lights?
‘Memba when those on the left were calling Bush a facsist? Good times. The government now controls the Interwebs.
Er “fascist.” Stupid phone keyboard.
So the people here who consider government intervention in this matter a power grab want large corporations to decide what you see and hear on the internet? What if Optimum Online (my cable internet service) decides to favor a business ally over some small upstart service by slowing down access to the smaller business. How is that good for me, especially if I would prefer the upstart? And how do I get relief when the market is dominated by a few huge companies that are all performing the same practice? The idea of Net Neutrality CLEARLY preserves people’s freedom to see what they want without interference.
If these huge conglomerates believe it is too hard to carry all traffic equally on their networks, maybe they should spend less money merging, making acquisitions, and paying huge executive salaries. Invest in infrastructure and research instead.
Net Neutrality is vital for keeping the content of the internet free. It means no discrimination against non-favored websites.
Reject Net Neutrality and you might find that very soon your favorite opinionated blog (left-wing, right-wing, or other) takes forever to load. Reject Net Neutrality and you’ll find that very soon the CNNs and the Foxes and the MSNBCs are the only websites that load quickly. Net Neutrality says that insider players can’t get into aspecial fast lane and everyone else is in the slow lane that takes so long to load that people give up and go to the big boys.
One big problem with this agreement is that it excludes wireless, which is big in the present, but even bigger in the future.
Net Neutrality is also good for the overall economy, as it prevents new internet experiences (Facebook, twitter, etc.) from being strangled in the crib by the big boys who don’t want the competition.
Want the next cool, internet sensation to develop in another country? Then gut Net Neutrality.
Well, it probably isn’t a coincidence that most technological and medical innovations are now being achieved outside of the US because American businesses would rather cling to their monopolies and strangle competition than actually do the hard work of innovating that they self-congratulate themselves so much for not actually doing.
How ’bout companies have fled the restrictive world they find themselves locked into here? Medical advances? Those days are over in this country. The funny thing is that this FCC just handed themselves more control over content with the stroke of a pen. Welcome to the nanny state.
It’s those American/Multinational Corporations that are clinging to their monopolies by deliberately outsourcing to other countries. American innovators have always been a threat to monopolies, so they must be kept out of work.
Wow. Great spouting of unthinking dogma! Isn’t it time to put on a black hoodie and rage against the machine? Too funny.
Did you assume I was a lefty? How unthinking and reactionary of you. Please explain how we all woke up stupid one morning and needed to replace ourselves with third-world “talent?” Indian talent is no threat to Bill Gates; American talent is. In fact, Americans are pretty smart cookies all around, and opinionated of course. And since the Internet has allowed our opinions to flow freely and extensively at a rapid pace, the snobs at the top no longer have the last word on anything, hence the need for “net neutrality.”
Well said. (I was going to make a long-ass post about the importance of net neutrality and it being the polar opposite of net fascism, but you said it all much better.)
James, You are SO spot-on.
For you Leftys, you can bitch all you want about Republicans yet, when you find out your government has seized control over Internet access in America, at the behest of lobbyists (including so-called Hollywood lobbyists screaming the P-word), it will be way too late.
The United States of America ranks practically last in Internet access speeds and exorbitant pricing perpetuated by telco/wico lobbyists yanking Congress’ chain.
If you doubt me, take a look at Australia’s Internet problems. How would you ever watch Hollywood crap streamed on your iPads?
WRITE.VOTE.RECALL
I am,
The Hollywood Republican
Your a little late on your Australia example. They’ve been down the road of low monthly usage and other Internet limiting things. Most companies there are now moving towards unlimited internet.
Of course, U.S. corporations, in their zeal to satisfy the stockholders, would never look to Australia and see what a fiasco usage caps were. They’ll just happily screw up the whole industry in the name of gouging the consumer.
Roger, The Australia example was spot-on. Most companies, as you say, are not moving towards unlimited data rates. Though, the population is pressuring their legislature, they’re still a long way off. Last I was there, the data rates sucked.
I am,
The Hollywood Republican
So you’re the one.
Stephen Rex, It wasn’t your stupid phone keyboard, it was the keylogger installed on your phone at the orders of the Federal Communist Communications Commission — FCCC.
I am,
The Hollywood Republican
You must be shills for the industry. Here’s the thing: Most conservatives I know are for net neutrality because its a free speech issue. Do you want someone else cutting off the speech of others? If the answer is no, your view makes no sense at all.
Boy, talk about “talking through your hat.” Free speech? Anything but. Welcome to the world of big brother.
Dear lord, I haven’t seen so many people fail to understand such a simple and beneficial ruling in a long time.
It’s seriously comical to see the Fox News people on here beat on the “obama communist fascist socialist” drum.
Obama is not a great president, but he’s not awful either. And he’s definitely not a communist, a fascist, or socialist either. You people are idiots.
Your very summation defines you — just in the singular.
Ironically, Hugo Chavez is also “regulating” the Venezuelan internet to “protect” his citizens. Is that what the FCC ultimately wants to do, protect people from the boogey-man internet companies like Verizon and Time Warner?
And I doubt all you little leftists on here wouldn’t be up in arms if the FCC under Michael Powell had tried something like this during the Bush years. You’d be screaming bloody murder.
You’re all hypocrites on the left…
Um, this “leftist” would have give Powell a standing ovation if his FCC passed such a ruling. But he was a corporate shill who would have happily allowed ISPs to limit what you can see. So speculation is moot.
“Change providers?” Only TWO companies deliver broadband Internet service to my house: Time Warner and AT&T. Truly a Hitler versus Stalin kind of choice, there. It’s an oligopoly (much like radio and TV) created by the necessary evil of government limiting access for entrepreneurs (only so many wires can fit under the street). Unfortunately, because of this — because unlike, say, toothpaste, internet service isn’t remotely a free market, none of us can just switch… Which is why regulation is needed to protect us. Papa Time Warner and Mama AT&T are both incentivized to block some sites; I’m powerless to do anything but patronize them.
akaison, Net Neutrality is a misnomer perpetrated by government bureaucrats. The argument is not about free speech. It’s about the government NOT doing their job to regulate Telcos/WiLcos to the extent of preventing them from collective price gouging and constructive access limitation.
As for being a shill for the industry, they don’t need any help from me. I shill for myself.
WRITE.VOTE.RECALL
I am,
The Hollywood Republican
Look, you and the others are obviously industry shills.
Real Net Neutrality is supported by a wide coalition of Libertarian, Conservative, Christian and Liberal groups- especially those with a strong game online. This doesn’t just harm Liberal groups. It harms anyone who is deemed outside of the mainstream.
There is no constituency for the idea that free speech is protected by this Fake Net Neutrality.
And, frankly, from a factual stand point, anyone who follows the issue knows that the U.S. is lagging behind some European countries in this area because we refuse to build the technical infrastructure.
Building that infrastructure is like building roads. No one company is going to want to do it because its not entirely profitable for them to do so. Nor will these new regs address that issue. It will simply cause us to lag behind further. Its like expecting a company to build a highway.
This whole system began as a government program under DARPA. So, its interesting to see you and the other complain about something that wouldn’t exist sot hat you can rant but-for the very government you complain about.
I was unaware that you were still using 56K to download all your movies and music at tops speeds. Oh ya, I forgot you still cannot go online with your phone and download applications on your iPhone anywhere in the country.
Thanks to the brain trusts at the FCC, my cable provider has a monopoly on my neighborhood. The monopoly is enforced by government regulation; deregulation would allow for more competition. Fortunately, the satellite companies are able to compete, so I took my business to them. “Free” market people like me are fine with anti-trust style regulations as those promote competition. The problem is the Democratic mindset of adopting heavy handed, central command style regulations that make it financially impossible for small businesses to compete with the pre-existing giants. Is it no wonder that the largest companies always support the heavy regulatory systems, and give predominantly to democrats? (see, for example, how the giant insurance companies gave heavily to Democrats, supported ‘Obamacare’, and oppose interstate insurance competition).
MattEddy, the reason you don’t have more competitive choices is because the FCC blocks competition, at the behest of the companies already established in your neighborhood. “Net neutrality” means that I cannot start a competing ISP that reduces broadband costs by simply blocking data hogging torrent sites. Hooray for governmentally imposed inefficiencies!
What useful idiots we have here! Why would anyone support blindly “Net Neutrality”? Is H’Wood nuts? Back in the 1980′s it was the PMRC, with Al and Tipper Gore! Funny that draconian laws like this are created, to destory “decentment” the highest form of Patriotism! They would like to create more laws, while they can’t ven inforce current immigation laws! Slective enforcement…
Net-Neutrality is a LAW we don’t need, and don’t want! Unless of course we are a closet Communist…
Now it’s larger-scale WAR on Freedom of Speech! I’m no fan of Rush Lumbuzz. But everyone has rights, even sucm bags! If they take away a fat-turd face like Rush Limbaugh. Next they’ll try to control what music you can listen to, what you can eat etc.
Reject Net Neutrality and you might find that very soon your favorite opinionated blog (left-wing, right-wing, or other) takes forever to load.
How about this, when internet actually starts being hindered in any substantial way by all those evil multinational corporations, get back to me.
It always amazes me how both left and right wing control freaks just can’t believe that if something isn’t regulated by a government every bit as corrupt and stupid as any big business that the devil will be loose in the land. To the point of demanding government control for even imaginary problems.
The truly sad part of this is that, by and large, the government control is directed by big business interests in the first place – often with the purpose of short circuiting the free market to keep them free from competition.
K, you ever heard of the phrase “an ounce of prevention is equal to a pound of cure?” By the time the corporations have their tentacles wrapped around the internet, it’d be too late.
I wouldn’t trust this chairman of the FCC. Why? Did a little research on this net neuatrality issue. For one thing several left wing activist groups were inolved and some had communist leanings. All this is sham,an effort to destroy free enterprise. The net doesn’t need no govermental controls what so ever. And how does this new chairman benefit? He’s just another lawyer who developed to internet startups which I can perceive as a conflict of interest.
Also Congress can invoke its power over FCC. It can defund it,declare regulation null and void.All this neautrality effort is a covert way to shut down free speech and dissenting voices. Come january there will be hearings on this issue.
One more thing the net should be open to everyone no matter what political point of views. When specific left wing elements are involve in a regulation it only breads suspicion.