For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Enjoy.
For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
Enjoy.
Uh yeah, I'll wait for the reviews when y'all get done trudging through
that...
The actual final rules are in Appendix A, pages 283 through 290 (8 pages), although that's a bit misleading, as the existing Part 8 is not included in full in that Appendix. There are also three amendments to Part 20, as well, in the Definitions, which means other paragraphs of Part 20 may apply.
It's interesting that pages 321 through 400 (80 pages) are taken up entirely by the dissenting Commissioner's statements, and Tom Wheeler's statement begins on page 314.
This will indeed be an interesting read.
I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good thing for
everyone.
If someone finds something opposing to that I would be interested to know.
I definitely didnt make it through the whole thing either 
I'm about 50 pages in, reading a little bit at a time. Paragraph 31 is one that anyone who does peering or exchanges should read and understand. I take it to mean something like 'Guys who abuse peering and engage in peering disputes, take note of what we just did to the last mile people; you have been warned.' But, having read Commission R&O's before on the broadcast (Media Bureau) side of the house for years, maybe I'm a bit cynical.
Paragraphs 37 through 40, including footnotes, appear tailored as a reply to Verizon's creative Morse reply. It's impossible to know which was first, but it is an interesting thought.
The 'Verizon Court' is mentioned numerous times. Paragraph43 and footnote 40 mention the 'Brand X' decision of the Supreme Court, mentioning that that decision left open the reclassification avenue. This could cause any legislation that attempted to thwart this R&O to eventually be ruled unconstitutional, citing Brand X. Prior to reading this R&O I wasn't familiar with this decision, so I've already learned something new.....and I think the reference in paragraph 43, footnote 41, is rather interesting as well. And Justice Scalia's pizza delivery analogy makes a humorous (in the political context!) appearance. Delightful.
Paragraphs 60 through 74 give a concise history of the action, and are a great read. And it also shows me that I should have paid a bit closer attention to the Part 8 I read a few days back; that's the part 8 from the R&O of 2010; the part 8 as of today in the eCFR has not been updated with the new sections, including 8.18. So the rules as set into place by this R&O were not public earlier; I stand corrected.
Paragraphs 78 through 85 and associated footnotes (I found footnote 131 particularly relevant) state in a nutshell why the FCC thought that this action had to be taken. And I am just in awe of the first sentence of paragraph 92. And paragraph 99 is spot-on on wireless carrier switching costs.
One of the more interesting side effects of this is that it would appear that a mass-market BIAS (the FCC's term, not mine, for Broadband Internet Access Service) provider cannot block outbound port 25 (R&O paragraph 105 and footnote 241 in particular). Well, it does depend upon what Paragraph 113 means about a device that 'does not harm the network.'
Whether you agree with the R&O or not, I believe that you will find it a very readable document. Some will no doubt strongly disagree.
Note: IANAL and this is my *personal* reading (in no way the view of my
employer). I¹m only 7 pages in as well, so this is likely under-informed
and in another 300+ pages I will become more enlightened...
Part A.16. No Throttling. "...A person engaged in the provision of
broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged, 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."
They then say in A.17 (which is not the rule I don¹t think but still
probably carries weight in some way) "...It prohibits the degrading of
Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content."
Unfortunately the rule itself only seems to speak to content, not source
or destination. Did someone miss adding that to the rule?
- Jason
Page 7 -14 looks to be pretty important. Specifcially:
NO BLOCKING:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content,
applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable
network management.
NO THROTTLING:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, 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.
NO PAID PRIORITIZATION:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid
prioritization.
There is also an interesting bit on gatekeeping:
Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with
or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and
use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content,
applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’
ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices
available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be
considered a violation of this rule.
I think there are going to be a lot of complex implications of this
announcement (canidate for most obvious statement aware winner!).
The document (if I read it correctly) states that "reasonable network management" includes spam filtering.... (yeah!)
However, in spite of that... it seems to give the MISTAKEN impression that:
(1) ALL spam is ALWAYS... NOT-lawful content
(2) ALL lawful content is NEVER spam.
(again, I'm not saying the document says this directly... only that it seems to give that impression at times!)
But, in fact, there is actually MUCH spam that is 100% legal, but also 100% unsolicited/undesired and therefore frequently blocked by spam filters, and rightly so. I just hope that nobody argues in a court of law that their exceptions for spam filtering only applies to UNLAWFUL spam!!! THAT would be a DISASTER!!!
Nevertheless, in such a circumstance, 47 USC 230(c)(2) should prevail and trump any such interpretation of this!
(If anyone thinks that 47 USC 230(c)(2) might not prevail over such an interpretation, please let me know... and let me know why?)
This will be interesting, in the context of cable providers providing inbound
access to subscriber-address "server" ports only for "commercial" accounts.
Another 40 pages, and found the detailed paragraphs related to this introductory paragraph. Those here who know how peering works in the real world, read paragraphs 194 through 206 of this R&O, including footnotes, and see if the FCC 'gets it' when it comes to how peering works.
This may have less of an impact than you think on your network (though it certainly will change your terms of service).
NO BLOCKING:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content,
applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable
network management.The document (if I read it correctly) states that "reasonable network management" includes spam filtering.... (yeah!)
However, in spite of that... it seems to give the MISTAKEN impression that:
(1) ALL spam is ALWAYS... NOT-lawful content
(2) ALL lawful content is NEVER spam.
I think the issue is adequately addressed by the R&O's paragraph 222 and its neighbors, with footnotes 571, 572, and 573 elucidating. The short version: the FCC is not going to rigidly define this and leave it up to the providers, but they will address it on a case-by-case basis if need be. At least that was my takeaway.
Nevertheless, in such a circumstance, 47 USC 230(c)(2) should prevail and trump any such interpretation of this!
(If anyone thinks that 47 USC 230(c)(2) might not prevail over such an interpretation, please let me know... and let me know why?)
It would seem, but I am not a lawyer, that perhaps it would. It's not directly addressed in the portions of the R&O that I've read thus far, and that specific paragraph is not cited that I could find. A Good Samaritan law, in 47 USC..... fun stuff.
Found it; paragraph 532 addresses 230(c). In a nutshell, the applicability does not change due to the reclassification of BIAS providers as telecommunications services.