FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by MAGZine on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @11:46AM (#8997842)

    These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services

of 'lawful content and services'. I don't mean to ruin a good thing, but is it implied here that ISPs may become the gatekeepers? I don't want what happened to YouTube (automatic content blocking because it's "unlawful") to take place with the general internet. One of the most important aspects of the internet, in my own opinion, is an unfiltered, uncensored stream of data.

I'd be very cautious about what shaping we permit to our network traffic. Laws are fickle, knowledge is power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by Someone1234 on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @11:52AM (#8997885)

I think you're reading a LOT more into that than was actually said.

All he is saying is, if an ISP gets a court order, that they can then block access to content like they do now, and the FCC won't go after them as a result.

It isn't a new power or an expansion, just continuing the current situation that exists.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by dragonwriter on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @12:27PM (#8998149)

Without the rules, ISPs can block any content, lawful or unlawful, without consequence.

With the rules, ISPs cannot block lawful content without consequence, but the rules don't prohibit blocking unlawful content. OTOH, if there are penalties for block lawful content, simple prudence will also lead ISPs to restraint in efforts to block unlawful content absent other rules mandating such blocking, lest they inadvertently block lawful content and are penalized for so doing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by Retric on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @12:32PM (#8998186)

This is actually a very important and reasonable exception. A DDoS attack is unlawful traffic and we really do want ISP's to be able to block this at the switch level. Without this exception the courts would likely quickly strike down this decision.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by pjc50 on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @12:27PM (#8998148)

Obliging carriers to carry content that they know to be unlawful is also unworkable. Among other things, it makes dealing with DDoS impossible.

In the UK we have the IWF blocklist for CP, plus the Pirate Bay block, and gradually expanding inadequately controlled currently optional "adult content" filters. The slippery slope is real, but has to be fought at a halfway point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by noobermin on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @12:08PM (#8998005)

I think the definition of what is "lawful" is a very important issue we should be concerned with, but it is a separate one from Net Neutrality.

I feel like this is still a leap forward on net, and we should be happy for it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality by wtallis on Wednesday February 04, 2015 @12:00PM (#8997956)

Title 2 has a provision that says providers of "an interactive computer service" can't be held liable for their attempts to block access to obscenities or other objectionable content.

[ Parent | on HN ]