FCC one step closer to finalizing net neutrality rules

The concept of net neutrality for Internet service providers got one step closer to becoming the law of the land this week. According to a post on The Hill web site the Federal Communications Commission has now delivered its proposed rules that will govern how ISP can handle traffic. The rules were turned into the Office of Management and Budget the past Thursday. The move now starts a period of time where the public can send their comments on the net neutrality rules for the next 30 days.

Once that period of comment is over the Office of Management and Budget will then decide to approve or disapprove the FCC's rule. If the rules are indeed approved, they will go into effect 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register. That's the daily official publication of the US federal government.

In its basic terms, the FCC's net neutrality rules will forbid ISP from slowing down or blocking net traffic to competing companies. The laws were passed in a heavily partisan vote by the FCC with the three Democratic members voting yes while the two Republicans voting no. Republicans feel that the rules amount to unnecessary regulation of ISP while supporters believe that ISPs would be able to control access to the Internet if such rules were not in place.

Verizon had already sued to block the net neutrality rules. However a judge dismissed the case because the rules had not yet been published in the National Register. It's expected that Verizon, along with other ISPs, will attempt to launch a court action against the rules when that happens.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The six ways you can appeal the "Six Strikes" mitigation measures

Next Story

Windows 8: Build 8042 compiled

23 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

When government gets involved they wind up spending too much money and assign gov bureaucrats who have no idea what they are supposed to do. Like others said, corporations have little ways to make profits. They already face harsh competition and a slim profit margin. This will bite the consumers in the form of fees and higher bills. It is anything but neutral, the name is just a facade. True free-market capitalism allows you to boycott, or change providers to "stick it" to the companies that displease you. If the company gets the message, it will change its ways. Government does NOT need to be involved in this situation. Why not get everyone online for anti(Comcast) day? All the people who are tired of the throttling cancel memberships.. (They) will get the message.

It's funny that there are those who think that the only reason this shouldn't happen is because "the government" is doing it, and it's the "the government" controlling what ISPs can and cannot do. But if it were a private corporation trying to impose the same restrictions upon users, those people would embrace it with open arms. Ironically enough, not requiring net neutrality to be observed will bring exactly that: AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and other ISPs telling users what they can and cannot do online. We'll be charged more money to be provided capped, throttled, and filtered Internet service.

Verizon earned over $14 billion in operating income last year. AT&T earned over $19 billion in operating income last year. But poor Verizon and AT&T can't afford to upgrade and maintain their networks to levels that don't require capping, throttling, and traffic shaping? Give me a break. They're too busy funneling billions of dollars a year into the pockets of shareholders and do-nothing CEOs to actually spend money they have on necessary infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

So just for clarity, the logic goes: the government, a not-for-profit entity, should never be able to tell you what you can and cannot do; but greedy corporations that are only out to sap you of every dollar you earn should be able to take all your money and still control what you can and cannot do.

hamslammer said,
The Federal government needs to stay out of this. Anytime they get involved they ALWAYS screw things up royally.

Considering the alternative, I don't think they can make it worse tbh.

hamslammer said,
The Federal government needs to stay out of this. Anytime they get involved they ALWAYS screw things up royally.

While I agree with you...the alternative is kind of like handing the reins over to Satans minions

Spoken like a liberal. The government ALWAYS makes it worse. Only a fool would think otherwise.

ScubaDog said,
Spoken like a liberal. The government ALWAYS makes it worse. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Really? So its not the government that provided your Education? Its not the govt that paved your roads? Its not the govt that maintains a police force so I dont come over to your house and shoot you in the face for being ignorant?

The goventment is there to HELP its people. Yeah, the US govt has been doing a lot of ridiculous things in recent history, but THIS is actually one of the things that is there to HELP ensure fair access to the internet for everyone.

so ISP's cant choose the sites you see .. but a harware company can choose which websites they show their customers.. hmm interesting..

I think this is messed up.. so ISP's cant accept money to make certain websites faster but if you dont give apple a cut of your profits your site can get blocked (New York Times website for not selling it as an app)

Alladaskill17 said,
So, this is good for the consumer correct?

Yes, which is why the megacorps are fighting it.

They want common carrier protection, local uncontested monopolies, and no responsibility/regulation at all.

Alladaskill17 said,
So, this is good for the consumer correct?

NO, it is NOT good for the consumer. The current infrastructure cannot continue to handle the rapidly growing demands consumers are placing on it. ISPs and related companies need to be able to upgrade equipment, lines, etc., invest in new technologies. If they are prohibited from controlling traffic speeds and capacities until those improvements are in place, then consumers will run into bottlenecks that are a simple result of too many users, too much traffic, too little pipe.

Alladaskill17 said,
So, this is good for the consumer correct?

if republicans are fighting it, it's becasuse it is very bad for corporations, therefore really good for consumers

ScubaDog said,

NO, it is NOT good for the consumer. The current infrastructure cannot continue to handle the rapidly growing demands consumers are placing on it. ISPs and related companies need to be able to upgrade equipment, lines, etc., invest in new technologies. If they are prohibited from controlling traffic speeds and capacities until those improvements are in place, then consumers will run into bottlenecks that are a simple result of too many users, too much traffic, too little pipe.

keep drinking the kool aid bro

ScubaDog said,

NO, it is NOT good for the consumer. The current infrastructure cannot continue to handle the rapidly growing demands consumers are placing on it. ISPs and related companies need to be able to upgrade equipment, lines, etc., invest in new technologies. If they are prohibited from controlling traffic speeds and capacities until those improvements are in place, then consumers will run into bottlenecks that are a simple result of too many users, too much traffic, too little pipe.

Time warner hasn't upgraded anything in my area since I moved here two years ago and despite their growing user base in this area the connection is still just as horrid as it was two years ago, no better, no worse, barely usable in the evening but blazing fast in the morning and mid afternoon.

Most are already breaking this soon to be rule or rules by implementing insane low caps. Even Comcast with a data cap of 250Gigs a month is too low for what the quality of the videos COULD be from netflix vs what they are. Netflix had to adjust and put a preference on what quality you are getting to help save bandwidth when we shouldn't be restricted. I remember subing for my net as advertised of UNLIMITED amount with this XX speeds.

sava700 said,
Most are already breaking this soon to be rule or rules by implementing insane low caps. Even Comcast with a data cap of 250Gigs a month is too low for what the quality of the videos COULD be from netflix vs what they are. Netflix had to adjust and put a preference on what quality you are getting to help save bandwidth when we shouldn't be restricted. I remember subing for my net as advertised of UNLIMITED amount with this XX speeds.

hell, i wish i had 250GB as that would pretty much allow me room to breath. right now the AT&T cap of 150GB took effect about 2 months ago and i got to really watch what i get now .

they need to remove caps especially since a recent article on neowin says the bandwidth is basically free off peak hours and even peak hours is typically 1cent per GB (maybe less) which is not right for ISP's to charge overage fee's like they do when it costs them next to nothing if you blew over quite a bit.


This a good thing. The isps want to throttle or charge more for people using online servics like Netflix. They are a gateway to the internet not the police of the internet. Without this soon ISP s will new able to control you and them content you can watch or navigate to. Then they will be charging by the amount of dowloaded content in a month not just the access. Prices would soar and what would they care they would be making money.

This is NOT a good thing, you socialist. Just to educate you and any other mental midget who thinks this is good, ISP = Internet SERVICE PROVIDER. In other words, they provide you the ability to communicate on the internet via their network. THEIR network. Providing connectivity and bandwidth is not free. Maintaining their part of the infrastructure isn't free, nor is it cheap. They deserve the opportunity to make a profit for the product or service they provide. If you feel their service isn't worth what you pay, then go with someone else. ISPs can't "control you". What a load of garbage. Some ISPs already charge by the amount you download, and wireless carriers do some of that already, too. I'm sick of you socialists whining how "evil companies are" because they want to make money.

ScubaDog said,
If you feel their service isn't worth what you pay, then go with someone else. ISPs can't "control you". What a load of garbage.

Where I live the ISP's completely control me 100% from every angle, I have but two choices, time warner and AT&T, they raise their price, lower speeds, cap bandwidth, whatever their greedy money-hungry selves want to do to me I MUST comply because I have no other choice unless I want to just stay off the web altogether.
Yes, they are very "evil".

Order_66 said,

Where I live the ISP's completely control me 100% from every angle, I have but two choices, time warner and AT&T, they raise their price, lower speeds, cap bandwidth, whatever their greedy money-hungry selves want to do to me I MUST comply because I have no other choice unless I want to just stay off the web altogether.
Yes, they are very "evil".

Exactly, where I live the only choice I have is AT&T DSL, which can barely be called broadband at all. There "is" a competeing cable company, Atlantic Broadband, but they refuse to run cable to my house because its "more then 300 ft" from the main line; so its AT&T or nothing at all.

Net Nuetrality is a GOOD THING and anyone who thinks otherwise is either:
1) ignorant of what it actually is or
2) choosing to be a troll.

Preventing ISP's from blocking your access to content or to throttle use of certain services is a good thing.

The Stark said,
They need to change the logo. CD/DVD... Srsly?

Looks kind of like a speaker laid down facing upward to me.