FCC releases Open Internet document
For the first time to the public http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2... Enjoy.
On Mar 12, 2015 11:01 AM, "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2...
Enjoy.
Uh yeah, I'll wait for the reviews when y'all get done trudging through that...
Page 7 -14 looks to be pretty important. Specifcially: NO BLOCKING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management. NO THROTTLING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management. NO PAID PRIORITIZATION: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. There is also an interesting bit on gatekeeping: Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule. I think there are going to be a lot of complex implications of this announcement (canidate for most obvious statement aware winner!). On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2015 11:01 AM, "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2...
Enjoy.
Uh yeah, I'll wait for the reviews when y'all get done trudging through that...
On 3/12/2015 1:30 PM, William Kenny wrote:
NO BLOCKING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
The document (if I read it correctly) states that "reasonable network management" includes spam filtering.... (yeah!) However, in spite of that... it seems to give the MISTAKEN impression that: (1) ALL spam is ALWAYS... NOT-lawful content (2) ALL lawful content is NEVER spam. (again, I'm not saying the document says this directly... only that it seems to give that impression at times!) But, in fact, there is actually MUCH spam that is 100% legal, but also 100% unsolicited/undesired and therefore frequently blocked by spam filters, and rightly so. I just hope that nobody argues in a court of law that their exceptions for spam filtering only applies to UNLAWFUL spam!!! THAT would be a DISASTER!!! Nevertheless, in such a circumstance, 47 USC 230(c)(2) should prevail and trump any such interpretation of this! (If anyone thinks that 47 USC 230(c)(2) might not prevail over such an interpretation, please let me know... and let me know why?) -- Rob McEwen
On 03/12/2015 02:02 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 3/12/2015 1:30 PM, William Kenny wrote:
NO BLOCKING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
The document (if I read it correctly) states that "reasonable network management" includes spam filtering.... (yeah!)
However, in spite of that... it seems to give the MISTAKEN impression that:
(1) ALL spam is ALWAYS... NOT-lawful content (2) ALL lawful content is NEVER spam.
I think the issue is adequately addressed by the R&O's paragraph 222 and its neighbors, with footnotes 571, 572, and 573 elucidating. The short version: the FCC is not going to rigidly define this and leave it up to the providers, but they will address it on a case-by-case basis if need be. At least that was my takeaway.
Nevertheless, in such a circumstance, 47 USC 230(c)(2) should prevail and trump any such interpretation of this!
(If anyone thinks that 47 USC 230(c)(2) might not prevail over such an interpretation, please let me know... and let me know why?)
It would seem, but I am not a lawyer, that perhaps it would. It's not directly addressed in the portions of the R&O that I've read thus far, and that specific paragraph is not cited that I could find. A Good Samaritan law, in 47 USC..... fun stuff.
On 03/12/2015 02:02 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Nevertheless, in such a circumstance, 47 USC 230(c)(2) should prevail and trump any such interpretation of this!
(If anyone thinks that 47 USC 230(c)(2) might not prevail over such an interpretation, please let me know... and let me know why?)
Found it; paragraph 532 addresses 230(c). In a nutshell, the applicability does not change due to the reclassification of BIAS providers as telecommunications services.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:30:16PM -0500, William Kenny wrote:
Page 7 -14 looks to be pretty important. Specifcially:
NO BLOCKING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
NO THROTTLING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
NO PAID PRIORITIZATION: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
There is also an interesting bit on gatekeeping: Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
I think there are going to be a lot of complex implications of this announcement (canidate for most obvious statement aware winner!).
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2015 11:01 AM, "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2...
Enjoy.
Uh yeah, I'll wait for the reviews when y'all get done trudging through that...
This will be interesting, in the context of cable providers providing inbound access to subscriber-address "server" ports only for "commercial" accounts. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
This may have less of an impact than you think on your network (though it certainly will change your terms of service). -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+dah=franczek.com@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike A Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:50 PM To: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: FCC releases Open Internet document On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:30:16PM -0500, William Kenny wrote:
Page 7 -14 looks to be pretty important. Specifcially:
NO BLOCKING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.
NO THROTTLING: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.
NO PAID PRIORITIZATION: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.
There is also an interesting bit on gatekeeping: Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
I think there are going to be a lot of complex implications of this announcement (canidate for most obvious statement aware winner!).
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:32 AM, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2015 11:01 AM, "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/ FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Enjoy.
Uh yeah, I'll wait for the reviews when y'all get done trudging through that...
This will be interesting, in the context of cable providers providing inbound access to subscriber-address "server" ports only for "commercial" accounts. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin Doug Hass Associate 312.786.6502 Franczek Radelet P.C. 300 South Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60606 312.986.0300 - Main 312.986.9192 - Fax www.franczek.com Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. ________________________________________ For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. ________________________________________ Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the environment before printing this email
On 03/12/2015 10:58 AM, Ca By wrote:
For the first time to the public http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-2...
The actual final rules are in Appendix A, pages 283 through 290 (8 pages), although that's a bit misleading, as the existing Part 8 is not included in full in that Appendix. There are also three amendments to Part 20, as well, in the Definitions, which means other paragraphs of Part 20 may apply. It's interesting that pages 321 through 400 (80 pages) are taken up entirely by the dissenting Commissioner's statements, and Tom Wheeler's statement begins on page 314. This will indeed be an interesting read.
I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good thing for everyone. If someone finds something opposing to that I would be interested to know. I definitely didnt make it through the whole thing either :) On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 03/12/2015 10:58 AM, Ca By wrote:
For the first time to the public http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/ 2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
The actual final rules are in Appendix A, pages 283 through 290 (8 pages), although that's a bit misleading, as the existing Part 8 is not included in full in that Appendix. There are also three amendments to Part 20, as well, in the Definitions, which means other paragraphs of Part 20 may apply.
It's interesting that pages 321 through 400 (80 pages) are taken up entirely by the dissenting Commissioner's statements, and Tom Wheeler's statement begins on page 314.
This will indeed be an interesting read.
-- eSited LLC (701) 390-9638
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good thing for everyone.
I'm about 50 pages in, reading a little bit at a time. Paragraph 31 is one that anyone who does peering or exchanges should read and understand. I take it to mean something like 'Guys who abuse peering and engage in peering disputes, take note of what we just did to the last mile people; you have been warned.' But, having read Commission R&O's before on the broadcast (Media Bureau) side of the house for years, maybe I'm a bit cynical. Paragraphs 37 through 40, including footnotes, appear tailored as a reply to Verizon's creative Morse reply. It's impossible to know which was first, but it is an interesting thought. The 'Verizon Court' is mentioned numerous times. Paragraph43 and footnote 40 mention the 'Brand X' decision of the Supreme Court, mentioning that that decision left open the reclassification avenue. This could cause any legislation that attempted to thwart this R&O to eventually be ruled unconstitutional, citing Brand X. Prior to reading this R&O I wasn't familiar with this decision, so I've already learned something new.....and I think the reference in paragraph 43, footnote 41, is rather interesting as well. And Justice Scalia's pizza delivery analogy makes a humorous (in the political context!) appearance. Delightful. Paragraphs 60 through 74 give a concise history of the action, and are a great read. And it also shows me that I should have paid a bit closer attention to the Part 8 I read a few days back; that's the part 8 from the R&O of 2010; the part 8 as of today in the eCFR has not been updated with the new sections, including 8.18. So the rules as set into place by this R&O were not public earlier; I stand corrected. Paragraphs 78 through 85 and associated footnotes (I found footnote 131 particularly relevant) state in a nutshell why the FCC thought that this action had to be taken. And I am just in awe of the first sentence of paragraph 92. And paragraph 99 is spot-on on wireless carrier switching costs. One of the more interesting side effects of this is that it would appear that a mass-market BIAS (the FCC's term, not mine, for Broadband Internet Access Service) provider cannot block outbound port 25 (R&O paragraph 105 and footnote 241 in particular). Well, it does depend upon what Paragraph 113 means about a device that 'does not harm the network.' Whether you agree with the R&O or not, I believe that you will find it a very readable document. Some will no doubt strongly disagree.
On 03/12/2015 01:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good thing for everyone.
I'm about 50 pages in, reading a little bit at a time. Paragraph 31 is one that anyone who does peering or exchanges should read and understand. I take it to mean something like 'Guys who abuse peering and engage in peering disputes, take note of what we just did to the last mile people; you have been warned.' But, having read Commission R&O's before on the broadcast (Media Bureau) side of the house for years, maybe I'm a bit cynical. Another 40 pages, and found the detailed paragraphs related to this introductory paragraph. Those here who know how peering works in the real world, read paragraphs 194 through 206 of this R&O, including footnotes, and see if the FCC 'gets it' when it comes to how peering works.
Note: IANAL and this is my *personal* reading (in no way the view of my employer). I¹m only 7 pages in as well, so this is likely under-informed and in another 300+ pages I will become more enlightened... Part A.16. No Throttling. "...A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content,application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management." They then say in A.17 (which is not the rule I don¹t think but still probably carries weight in some way) "...It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content." Unfortunately the rule itself only seems to speak to content, not source or destination. Did someone miss adding that to the rule? - Jason
participants (9)
-
Bryan Tong -
Ca By -
Hass, Douglas A. -
Lamar Owen -
Livingood, Jason -
Mike A -
Rob McEwen -
shawn wilson -
William Kenny