FCC reverses net neutrality ISP transparency rules

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Gass, Mar 16, 2017.

Tags:
  1. Gass

    Gass Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Feb 23, 2017 - Small ISPs will no longer be required to inform customers of their network management practices

    The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to roll back some net neutrality regulations that require broadband providers to inform customers about their network management practices.

    The Republican-controlled FCC on Thursday suspended the net neutrality transparency requirements for broadband providers with fewer than 250,000 subscribers. Critics called the decision anticonsumer.

    The transparency rule, waived for five years in a 2-1 party-line vote Thursday, requires broadband providers to explain to customers their pricing models and fees as well as their network management practices and the impact on broadband service.

    The commission had previously exempted ISPs with fewer than 100,000 subscribers, but Thursday's decision expands the number of ISPs not required to inform customers. Only about 20 U.S. ISPs have more than 250,000 subscribers.

    The five-year waiver may be moot, however. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Republicans in Congress are considering ways to scrap a large chunk of the net neutrality regulations approved by the agency just two years ago.

    Small ISPs have argued the transparency rules amount to burdensome and costly regulations, while consumer advocates have argued that broadband customers have the right to know when a provider is throttling traffic. The exemption will allow small ISPs to redirect the money they spend on compliance, Pai said.

    "I firmly believe that these ISPs should spend their limited capital building out better broadband to rural America, not hiring lawyers and accountants to fill out unnecessary paperwork demanded by Washington, D.C.," he said.

    However, the White House Office of Management and Budget, under former President Barack Obama, found that compliance with the transparency rules takes each broadband provider less than seven hours a year, noted Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat. The new waiver exempts some large companies with smaller broadband subsidiaries from the transparency rules, she said.

    "In an ongoing quest to dismantle basic consumer protections for broadband services, the majority has decided to exempt billion-dollar public companies from being transparent with consumers," Clyburn added. "This represents yet another in a series of steps being taken to jettison pro-consumer initiatives."

    The commission's two Republicans defended the change. In January, the House of Representatives passed a bill with a similar exemption in a voice vote with no dissenters, Commissioner Michael O'Rielly noted.

    The vote represents a "sensible and soundly justifiable exemption for small internet service providers from unnecessary and expensive" regulations, O'Rielly said.

    Credit to the Author and source:
    http://www.computerworld.com/articl...es-net-neutrality-isp-transparency-rules.html
     
  2. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,691
    Yeah, while EU improves the situation with people's privacy step by step, US government does the opposite.
     
    Gass likes this.
  3. Gass

    Gass Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Thanks to the Commander In Chief
    I'll keep (and I hope everyone else) will to - the politics out of our precious forum as well as personal feelings on the US political government at this point in time. It's a 4 year hitch or hiccup - no matter what. Pray for us. . .
     
  4. Boo Berry

    Boo Berry Moderator + Beta Tester Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,885
    I"m not surprised by this and I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC threw net neutrality out completely.
     
  5. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,691
    That would be really disappointing. Ditching net neutrality by the US will serve as a justification for making the same steps by other countries politicians.
     
  6. Gass

    Gass Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Open Internet Order:
    Order will enact strong, sustainable rules grounded in multiple sources of legal authority to protect the Open Internet and ensure that Americans reap the economic, social, and civic benefits of an Open Internet today and into the future.
    view online
    .txt - https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.txt
    .pdf - https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
    download
    Docx - https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.docx

    The biggest areas I'm concerned with is Content, Price and Privacy.
    Taking away the black and white understandings to abide by and opening up many new gray areas - for each ISP and content provider to serve up the internet as they wished. (Mail - Television - Telephone all have had Government rules to adhere too.)

    @Boo Berry hope not as technology thrusts us everyday in to a digital world.
    @avatar other countries politicians should be wiser than ours are right now.

    The US Government wants to throw a lot of it's now supported subsidies and programs back in the laps of the States - which most are running at boarderline broke already. I feel being POOR in the US is going to take on a new meaning in the next few years.

    The Boarder Wall that's been spoke of in the US is going to be a double bladed sword - not only to keep some out, but to keep all in as well. With it's mere wordage as a name, the meaning now comes with a lot more on the table of underlying principles than just a physical barrier to stop something at our outer most edges. It will at it's worst be used to categorize and class all citizens that the Civil liberties or personal freedoms that are personal guarantees of the Constitution especially its Bill of Rights was meant to protect against. When up is to mean down and in is to mean out, now an abstract understanding will be applied, it will not be as clear as night and day. Least I hope not a definition change - as the man said I made my Billions with the Law. High priced attorneys bending law definitions to their real meanings and yielding loopholes. Once your rich the law is open to interpretation, which should not be the case unless it serves to benefit the poorest of people too.

    I truly see a greater need for Adguard's Team to beef up it's privacy (Stealth Mode module) now more than ever, as @avatar has mentioned, if other countries should follow suit in allowing less internet freedoms, then whatever protections it's to offer in ones privacy that Adguard will come to offer, will make it not only a household NAME here, but being a Worldwide Leader for the lesser amounts of online Privacy afforded to all the rest of worlds populations in all countries.

    Gass :D

     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
  7. anajames

    anajames Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2017
    Messages:
    30
    utter disappointment.
     
  8. Gass

    Gass Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2015
    Messages:
    377
    Just ran across this-
    31st March 2017
    The next question we should ask ourselves is, “Well, is there already something in place to stop this?
    -Under the Wiretap Act (18 USC § 2511), it is already illegal for ISPs to divulge your private information to third parties without first having your consent.
    -All of this already establishes the basis for the position that the FCC rules were not only unnecessary, but also added more burdens to smaller providers to an already enormous list of rules.
    -The point is that there is really very little reason to panic with regards to the Congressional repeal.

    "If we really want the Internet to be free and open, perhaps it wouldn’t hurt for us to look outside our fences and see what other countries are doing. It is no coincidence that the countries with the highest freedom of choice for their customers and highest connection speeds also happen to have the least amount of telecommunications regulations. Because almost anyone can enter the market, almost anyone does, making larger ISPs feel constant pressure from smaller ones and giving them the incentive to add value to their subscribers rather than sit comfortably in an established regional quasi-monopoly as they do in the U.S."
    https://www.maketecheasier.com/fcc-...letter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=01042017

    A day before the same site ran this on March 30th "US Overturns Internet Privacy Rules – What This Means for You"
    https://www.maketecheasier.com/us-o...letter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=01042017

    Two different authors working on the same site.

    The dated first article says to go or look for "privacy-oriented ISPs" and/or "cell provider with excellent privacy record".
    As the first author and date suggests if not wanting to change or of limited options - using a VPN is the simplest option.
    It's also a site which sells products by other software developers having listings for many - I find Adguard Premium: Lifetime Subscription offered here too.

    Gass :D