§ 8.5 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 non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:§ 8.7 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.§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.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.Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragr
Why would they have? You have to pass a bill to find out what's in it.
lawful content
Quotelawful contentSpoiler
So you're in favor of child porn?
Quote from: LC on March 13, 2015, 12:33:04 PMSo you're in favor of child porn?If "in favour" constitutes not being punished for watching it, then sure.
But what about uploading and hosting it?
So, to that end, the private production, uploading and hosting of real child pornography should absolutely be a heavily prosecutable offence.
Quote from: BrenMan 94 on March 13, 2015, 12:28:16 PMQuotelawful contentSpoilerSo you're in favor of child porn?
Quote from: LC on March 13, 2015, 12:33:04 PMQuote from: BrenMan 94 on March 13, 2015, 12:28:16 PMQuotelawful contentSpoilerSo you're in favor of child porn? No, but I am in favor of encryption and certain sectors of the black market. Not to mention vague statements are vague.
1. The record is generally supportive of our proposal to reiterate that open Internet rules do not supersede any obligation a broadband provider may have—or limit its ability—to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or homeland or national security authorities (together, “safety and security authorities”).776 Broadband providers have obligations under statutes such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,777 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,778 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act779 that could in some circumstances intersect with open Internet protections. Likewise, in connection with an emergency, there may be federal, state, tribal, and local public safety entities, homeland security personnel, and other authorities that need guaranteed or prioritized access to the Internet in order to coordinate disaster relief and other emergency response efforts, or for other emergency communications. Most commenters recognize the benefits of clarifying that these obligations are not inconsistent with open Internet rules.
Section 302Quote1. The record is generally supportive of our proposal to reiterate that open Internet rules do not supersede any obligation a broadband provider may have—or limit its ability—to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or homeland or national security authorities (together, “safety and security authorities”).776 Broadband providers have obligations under statutes such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,777 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,778 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act779 that could in some circumstances intersect with open Internet protections. Likewise, in connection with an emergency, there may be federal, state, tribal, and local public safety entities, homeland security personnel, and other authorities that need guaranteed or prioritized access to the Internet in order to coordinate disaster relief and other emergency response efforts, or for other emergency communications. Most commenters recognize the benefits of clarifying that these obligations are not inconsistent with open Internet rules.Fucking lol. Of course the one entity exempt from the laws is the same entity enforcing them.
So an exemption being made for those who need guaranteed or priority access in the event of a natural disaster or other national emergency situation in order to coordinate things like relief and rescue efforts is bad because....?
Likewise, in connection with an emergency, there may be federal, state, tribal, and local public safety entities, homeland security personnel, and other authorities that need guaranteed or prioritized access to the Internet in order to coordinate disaster relief and other emergency response efforts, or for other emergency communications.
Welp, here it is, now.PDF warninghttp://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdftl;dr Quote§ 8.5 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 non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.Section 8.7 is amended to read as follows:§ 8.7 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.§ 8.9 No paid prioritization.(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization.(b) “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. ederal Communications Commission FCC 15-24 285(c) The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.New section 8.11 is added to read as follows:§ 8.11 No unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage standard for Internet conduct.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.Section 8.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4), revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1) and (b)(2), removing paragraph (b)(3), redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (d) and (e), and adding new paragris this a bad thing? What did they take away?
Quote from: LC on March 13, 2015, 06:30:27 PMSo an exemption being made for those who need guaranteed or priority access in the event of a natural disaster or other national emergency situation in order to coordinate things like relief and rescue efforts is bad because....?QuoteLikewise, in connection with an emergency, there may be federal, state, tribal, and local public safety entities, homeland security personnel, and other authorities that need guaranteed or prioritized access to the Internet in order to coordinate disaster relief and other emergency response efforts, or for other emergency communications."National emergency" isn't included in this section. This enters a huge grey area. What constitutes "other emergency communications"? Could, say, the Ferguson police department blackout communications during a protest in order to reserve the networks for law enforcement? There are a host of ways this can be abused, and the language is not clear enough to prevent such a scenario.
e·mer·gen·cyəˈmərjənsē/nounnoun: emergency; plural noun: emergenciesa serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
You're stretching here m8
The FCC didn't publicly publish the net neutrality shit for the before voting!
