Net neutrality rules to start in US on November 20

Internet service providers in the US will be under a new set of rules starting on November 20. PC Magazine reports that the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, which were approved last December, will finally go into effect on November 20. The date was set on Friday following the publication of the new rules by the FCC in the Federal Register.

The new rules state that Internet service providers, while allowing them to monitor and even slow down broadband speeds on their networks, cannot restrict access to web sites based on specific content. That means that after November 20 your local ISP cannot slow down access to, say, the Netflix streaming video service in favor of another similar web site. The idea is to give consumers full access to any web site or Internet service regardless of which ISP they use.

The new regulations are already getting opposition from ISPs and wireless carriers. Verizon sued to stop the rules from going into effect earlier this year, claiming that the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate their activities. The courts threw out the lawsuit, however. They said that since the rules had not yet been published in the Federal Register, it was too early to file lawsuits against the FCC. It's expected that Verizon and other companies will now re-file those lawsuits now that the rules have been published. In addition, a number of Republican lawmakers have also expressed their opposition to the net neutrality rules. The Republican controlled US House of Representatives voted earlier this year to overturn the FCC's decision but that move didn't progress any further in the Congress.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

One-third of children under 10 in UK own a cell phone

Next Story

Defects in some iPhone 5 touch panels reported

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The FCC is nothing but the toothless lap dog of big corporations who publicly bemoan their decisions but privately chuckle quietly to themselves whilst rubbing their hands together

Why didn't the stupid courts just decide on this back the first time when they knew Verizon and the rest would be right back as soon as stuff was done?

I'm amazed by how lazy and dumb our government and judicial system can be most of the time.

cork1958 said,
Why didn't the stupid courts just decide on this back the first time when they knew Verizon and the rest would be right back as soon as stuff was done?

I'm amazed by how lazy and dumb our government and judicial system can be most of the time.


Because the purpose of the court is to determine, among other things, if a law is applied properly. Thus, a court cannot rule on a law that isn't a law yet. Technically, it is regulatory code, but still has the same rule of law when enforced.

More importantly, however, it is vital (from a consumer perspective) that the court find that the FCC has the authority to regulate ISPs as they do other communications carriers, regardless of their "traditional" status. Personally, I know it will never happen because of the current political climate, but if it were up to me and I was the chair of the FCC I would be pushing to make anybody who is by most definitions an "Internet Service Provider" a common carrier. It would eliminate most of these ambiguities and gray areas that ISPs are fighting in court, and make the enforcement of net neutrality almost unchallengeable.

SpyderCanopus said,
State regulation of industry is fascism.

The physical medium and the wires are public infrastructure just like roads and highways and of military and national security importance.

sopharine said,

The physical medium and the wires are public infrastructure just like roads and highways and of military and national security importance.

Who paid for the cable and fiber lines? State sanctioned monopolies. Fascism = state + corporations

Net neutrality benefits the consumer because it improves competition. For example, an ISP can't throttle one video streaming service in favor of another. It also means that ISPs can't charge extra for some "premium package" which provides high speed access to steaming video, downloads, or anything else.

ISPs can still throttle you and charge you more if you download more than a certain amount (40GB). But they CANNOT charge you or throttle you based on the content, whether it's web browsing, downloads, bittorrent, or steaming video.

Furthermore, Cable Companies should NOT be allowed to offer internet service because the two business conflict with each other and the customer does not get what they paid for, an unregulated service. Cable companies MUST BE FORCED to stick with cable tv and have independent ISP's offer internet. But of course, since cable companies own the transmission cables this cannot happen right now. I am sorry but when I pay for internet, I pay for data transmission and ISP's should not be allowed to block content just because it threatens their other businesses. I am sorry but that is just unacceptable.

This isn't awesome at all! They are allowed to slow down but not block?? Seriously? So instead of giving you 0 kb/sec on specific websites such as Netflix they will give you 0.000000000001 kb/sec....It's like a car dealership selling you a car that is limited to 1 km/hour. You can still use it but it will be USELESS.

vladmphoto said,
This isn't awesome at all! They are allowed to slow down but not block?? Seriously? So instead of giving you 0 kb/sec on specific websites such as Netflix they will give you 0.000000000001 kb/sec....It's like a car dealership selling you a car that is limited to 1 km/hour. You can still use it but it will be USELESS.

I agree, but then they'd have to do that to "similar" sites as well. Like say Hulu. If the ISP's filter one... they have to filter all, at least that's how I read the article.

If ISP's do that, then they will have a customer uprising and a bigger issue on their hands.

It just means they're allowed to throttle the connection overall (over cap), just not for specific sties. I.e. if you go over 250 GB in a month, or w/e their policy is, they can throttle your whole connection but they can't throttle say netflix connections only, to give hulu or another site they have a partnership with, an edge.

FuhrerDarqueSyde said,
It just means they're allowed to throttle the connection overall (over cap), just not for specific sties. I.e. if you go over 250 GB in a month, or w/e their policy is, they can throttle your whole connection but they can't throttle say netflix connections only, to give hulu or another site they have a partnership with, an edge.

You have to be a serious TV addict to go over 250GB in a month. I have no sympathy for those types.

KingCrimson said,

You have to be a serious TV addict to go over 250GB in a month. I have no sympathy for those types.


What about people who use cloud storage services? Also, if you're involved in the tech industry for work at all, usage can add up quickly. I can quickly go through a couple gigs per day when SSHing into my work computers.

KingCrimson said,

You have to be a serious TV addict to go over 250GB in a month. I have no sympathy for those types.

You don't have to be a movie watcher to eat up that much usage. Playing Call of Duty on your online X-BOX eats up 30mb of data an hour.

I think most of those ISPs are going to throttle gamers as much as Netflix users.

texasghost said,

You don't have to be a movie watcher to eat up that much usage. Playing Call of Duty on your online X-BOX eats up 30mb of data an hour.

I think most of those ISPs are going to throttle gamers as much as Netflix users.


How do you people still have traffic limit in your countries is beyond me... We have unlimited plans for all damn isp's, except mobile internet. As for speed...well, at home I get 2-3 MB/s on external websites and 8-9MB/s in my country. All for about 10$/month.

Considering the lack of ISP choices in the US, I think that this is an awesome thing.

Now, if they would only pass regulation that would allow more than one Cable provider in my area. I'm tired of Comcast... they're too expensive.

giantsnyy said,
Considering the lack of ISP choices in the US, I think that this is an awesome thing.

Now, if they would only pass regulation that would allow more than one Cable provider in my area. I'm tired of Comcast... they're too expensive.


I think they did already. Verizon FIOS has been able to expand into regions where cable monopolies have existed for years.

gotta love government mandates. On one hand the US say you can't restrict access to these type of sites, and then on the other (e.g. Australian labor party's censorship) they blacklist other's - including politically embarrassing ones. Funny Australia seems to have a free trade agreement which would from the 20th of November make their censorship law illegal, but you can bet they won't be removing it.

dvb2000 said,
Funny Australia seems to have a free trade agreement which would from the 20th of November make their censorship law illegal, but you can bet they won't be removing it.

When does Australia have to follow U.S. FCC, the trade agrements are just relating to trade and copyright, not censership