[NewsPoster]

The US Federal Communications Commission has published its new Open Internet order, also known as net neutrality and Title II order, in full. The document spells out specifically which aspects of the 80-year-old Title II concept will be applied to Internet Service Providers, as well as specifics of the net neutrality order.

Electronista is reading the document in full now, but highlights of the order include the mandate that ISPs "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." Not specifically addressed are interconnect rules, such as the peering arrangements between Netflix and ISPs, other than the FCC will intercede as it deems necessary, following examination.

Notably, the document defines reasonable network management specifically. If connection throttling has a legitimate technical reason, then ISPs are still free to do so. However, business reasons, such as forcing consumers off unlimited data plans, are specifically not allowed.

Major Title II provisions that are going to be applied to ISPs include enhanced investigation of consumer complaints, protections for consumer privacy, fair access to poles and conduits (currently mostly blocked), protections for the disabled, and an enhancement to the Universal Service Fund for underserved area expansion. Notably, the order "will not impose, suggest or authorize any new taxes or fees -- there will be no automatic Universal Service fees applied, and the Congressional moratorium on Internet taxation applies to broadband."

Full FCC Title II, net neutrality proposal

[just a poster]

"We have to pass out it find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy."

[iBricking.com]

Can we please kill this silly Pelosi meme? She was being asked to defend healthcare reform provisions that were, at the time, nothing more than hypothetical parts of a hypothetical whole being debated in a hyper-politicized legislature. Her response was quite reasonable, in context, to anyone not trying to score cheap political points. ("Jony Ive, is it true the iPhone 7 will have more charge time than the 6?" "We have to spec it out to find out what's in it.")

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee
But I know I'll be a law someday
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill

[driven]

It was an idiotic response no matter how you spin it. She's seasoned enough to know that what she says will be taken in sound bites. It's also obvious that nobody that voted on it had any idea about what was in most of the bill, which makes her comment after the fact even more alarming.

As for your Ive comment, he'd never have said that. He may have said "We haven't designed it yet, so we can't answer at the moment." Saying "We'd have to spec it out to find out what's in it" would be as idiotic as Pelosi's comment.

[iBricking.com]

I agree (except for your third sentence) but since we know what she meant...

Back on point, I am not concerned in the least that the FCC's net neutrality proposal, including dissent, is five times longer than the iTunes contract.

[Mike Wuerthele]

And it is about as gripping as you'd think.

Somewhere between plumbing parts catalog and repair manual for a selectric typewriter.

[Charles Martin]

As mentioned previously, the bulk of the text in the formal proposal is -- like a lot of legal bills -- mostly filled with historical background and legal precedent citations. Mike will eventually report back on the actual amount of rules, but with a cursory glance over the form I'd say roughly 10-15 percent is actual new policy.

[Flying Meat]

I'm sure there is something absolutely horrifying in there somewhere. Anyone? No one? I'll wait...

[Mike Wuerthele]

Not really. Not for the people, or even for the ISPs.

Genuinely, had the ISPs acted the way that they should have under the original net neutrality provisos, than this wouldn't be anything at all for them. They don't really want you to know that there are tons of protections for them as well -- the feds aren't just dumping a pail of cold water on a party with this.