• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why wont the FCC release what is in the rules of net neutrality

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
13,016
Reaction score
6,979
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to see changes that could narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules set for a vote on Thursday.

Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of his provisions 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 and backed tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

Clyburn’s objections complicate the highly anticipated vote and add an extra bit of drama to the already high tensions on the five-member commission.

Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules, since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes.

Clyburn’s changes would leave in place the central and most controversial component of Wheeler’s rules — the notion that broadband Internet service should be reclassified so that it can be treated as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to utilities like phone lines.

Proponents of net neutrality have said such a move is the surest way to prevent Internet service providers from interfering with people’s access to the Web.

However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways 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.

The initial plan sought by Wheeler would allow the FCC to investigate and take action against deals that are “not just and reasonable,” according to a fact sheet released by the commission earlier this month.

Eliminating the new legal category could make it trickier for the FCC to police those arrangements, said officials with the agency, who were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the ongoing negotiations.

Other FCC officials have previously said that the broader act of reclassifying broadband Internet service would, in and of itself, give the commission enough power to oversee interconnection deals. That opinion has been backed up by lawyers at Google, among others, who made the argument to FCC officials last week.

Matt Wood, the policy director at the pro-net neutrality organization Free Press, disagreed with officials who thought the change could weaken the rule. Clyburn’s edit might actually make the rules stronger by getting rid of “unnecessary baggage” in Wheeler’s early draft, he said.

Clyburn’s changes also would replace a new standard for Internet service providers’ conduct, which was meant to act as a catchall rule for any future behavior that might abuse consumers. That standard would be swapped out with potentially narrower language from 2010 rules that prevented “unreasonable discrimination.” A federal court tossed out those 2010 rules early last year, setting the stage for the FCC to write new rules.

The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.

Clyburn declined to discuss specific changes she was supporting on Tuesday.

“This is a process that is an interaction with all five members of the commission and their offices,” she said after remarks at a policy forum hosted by Comptel, a trade group.

“I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”

Eleventh-hour drama for net neutrality | TheHill

what is in those "new rules"

and why wont they release them before the vote?

and does this worry anyone out there?
 
Mark Cuban says this will be a disaster for the consumer and business. I trust him on such matters.
 
A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to see changes that could narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules set for a vote on Thursday.

Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of his provisions 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 and backed tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

Clyburn’s objections complicate the highly anticipated vote and add an extra bit of drama to the already high tensions on the five-member commission.

Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules, since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes.

Clyburn’s changes would leave in place the central and most controversial component of Wheeler’s rules — the notion that broadband Internet service should be reclassified so that it can be treated as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to utilities like phone lines.

Proponents of net neutrality have said such a move is the surest way to prevent Internet service providers from interfering with people’s access to the Web.

However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways 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.

The initial plan sought by Wheeler would allow the FCC to investigate and take action against deals that are “not just and reasonable,” according to a fact sheet released by the commission earlier this month.

Eliminating the new legal category could make it trickier for the FCC to police those arrangements, said officials with the agency, who were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the ongoing negotiations.

Other FCC officials have previously said that the broader act of reclassifying broadband Internet service would, in and of itself, give the commission enough power to oversee interconnection deals. That opinion has been backed up by lawyers at Google, among others, who made the argument to FCC officials last week.

Matt Wood, the policy director at the pro-net neutrality organization Free Press, disagreed with officials who thought the change could weaken the rule. Clyburn’s edit might actually make the rules stronger by getting rid of “unnecessary baggage” in Wheeler’s early draft, he said.

Clyburn’s changes also would replace a new standard for Internet service providers’ conduct, which was meant to act as a catchall rule for any future behavior that might abuse consumers. That standard would be swapped out with potentially narrower language from 2010 rules that prevented “unreasonable discrimination.” A federal court tossed out those 2010 rules early last year, setting the stage for the FCC to write new rules.

The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.

Clyburn declined to discuss specific changes she was supporting on Tuesday.

“This is a process that is an interaction with all five members of the commission and their offices,” she said after remarks at a policy forum hosted by Comptel, a trade group.

“I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”

Eleventh-hour drama for net neutrality | TheHill

what is in those "new rules"

and why wont they release them before the vote?

and does this worry anyone out there?

I don't understand this notion of, "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it." I can say this, the FCC knows how touchy this subject is and they want all of the NN supporters on their side. The Pro-NNers will most likely rip apart the plan if they were to otherwise release it. Causing more delays and more headaches.
 
My take is that the whole purpose of this move is to impose a tax on Internet use. The justification will be that it protects consumers and provides broadband to the underprivileged while only imposing additional cost on greedy corporations.
 
My take is that the whole purpose of this move is to impose a tax on Internet use. The justification will be that it protects consumers and provides broadband to the underprivileged while only imposing additional cost on greedy corporations.

The Universal Service Fund has been used to expand internet access, but the people benefiting from that aren't paying into the fund. I thought that's the sort of thing you guys disliked.
 
The Universal Service Fund has been used to expand internet access, but the people benefiting from that aren't paying into the fund. I thought that's the sort of thing you guys disliked.

I always get a kick out of it when I use "greedy corporations" sarcastically and the anti-capitalists assume that I've seen the light of their ways.
 
My take is that the whole purpose of this move is to impose a tax on Internet use. The justification will be that it protects consumers and provides broadband to the underprivileged while only imposing additional cost on greedy corporations.

The purpose is power and control as is everything the federal government does.
 
My take is that the whole purpose of this move is to impose a tax on Internet use. The justification will be that it protects consumers and provides broadband to the underprivileged while only imposing additional cost on greedy corporations.

If peering agreements go away, consumers will need to protect their wallets because their internet costs will start rising significantly.
 
My take is that the whole purpose of this move is to impose a tax on Internet use. The justification will be that it protects consumers and provides broadband to the underprivileged while only imposing additional cost on greedy corporations.

Bingo - you see the impending birth of the new Obama smartphone right with free access for the special folks but funded by fees (never call them taxes) on the regular folks.
 
i am having issue with more secrecy

why cant we(you know the people) know what is in the new rules the FCC is writing?

what are they afraid of?

i keep remembering that our president said his administration would be the most open.....

everything seems veiled in secrecy.....

my trust for the administration is already gone.....and this crap is adding to it

just publish what you want passed, and let the debate begin
 
I always get a kick out of it when I use "greedy corporations" sarcastically and the anti-capitalists assume that I've seen the light of their ways.

Uhh, what? I was referring to th customers. Those rural leeches getting high speed internet access that I paid for via my phone bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom