Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Networking The Internet United States Your Rights Online

FCC Finalizes US Net Neutrality Rules 299

Posted by Soulskill
from the final-until-the-next-election-cycle dept.
milbournosphere writes "The FCC has finalized its proposed rules regarding net neutrality. The rules go into effect on 20 November, nearly a year after they passed in a 3-2 vote. The FCC's statement (PDF) summarizes the rules thus: 'First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.' It should be noted that some of the language is a little ambiguous; who is to decide what constitutes 'unreasonable discrimination?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Finalizes US Net Neutrality Rules

Comments Filter:
  • Judges, that's who! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cfalcon (779563) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:20PM (#37492960)

    "who is to decide what constitutes 'unreasonable discrimination?"

    That can go to court. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's definitely more protection than currently available.

    I'm more worried about "lawful" in there. If that's found to be "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" or something similar, then we might end up with torrent and freenet blockers anyway.

    • by 0racle (667029)
      If lawful is interpreted as "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" the whole internet would have to be shut down in the US. HTTP, SMTP and BitTorrent all can be and are used to disseminate content that breaks the law.
      • by Obfuscant (592200)

        If lawful is interpreted as "an application or webpage that is guaranteed to have no illegal content" the whole internet would have to be shut down in the US. HTTP, SMTP and BitTorrent all can be and are used to disseminate content that breaks the law.

        You're kidding, right? You really want to make the argument that because a website uses HTTP, and HTTP can be used to disseminate illegal content, that the website should be blocked as containing illegal content? Are you an **AA shill?

        I can guarantee that the website I run has no illegal content, and would thus meet the definition you propose for "lawful", because I put the content there and know the status. The fact that someone else uses their website to distribute CP in no way changes the lawfulness of

        • Like hell. I happen to own the copyright to the number 0x65, which happens to be a secret key, and you're distributing it. Luckily, I don't need to tell you about this - I only need to tell your provider. Start packing, buddy.

          Also, just because your website is legal *here* does not mean it's legal in The People's Republic of Zabundi. The Zabundi Grand Council has stated numerous times that your site is grossly illegal due to the forbidden topics you mention, and would arrest you on the spot if it had an

    • by tverbeek (457094) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:28PM (#37493100) Homepage

      Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

      • by geekmux (1040042)

        Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

        I see what you're getting at here, leaving it mostly up to interpretation, which can be a good thing in the end.

        But I also read this as an incessant and perpetual "need" to continue to bring interpretation in front of the court system in a pathetic attempt to continue to justify jobs within the legal system...a legal system that is of course, free-flowing, ultra-efficient, and never backlogged with massive amounts of bullshit exactly like this.

        • by tverbeek (457094)

          This legislative/judicial system of law is badly flawed.

          But it's better than the alternatives.

          • by geekmux (1040042)

            This legislative/judicial system of law is badly flawed.

            But it's better than the alternatives.

            When greed and corruption grow large enough, it's merely given a new name and reclassified. We call it "Government" these days instead of "Mafia". Illegal extortion becomes legal taxation. Hit men and murder-for-hire turns into the CIA and "wet work". And so on.

            That doesn't mean it makes it any better than the alternatives. It just appears that way due to it's inherent legality. And how far does it need to become "badly flawed" to reach the point of "Unconstitutional", or is the legal system even remo

      • by Curunir_wolf (588405) on Friday September 23, 2011 @01:29PM (#37493882) Homepage Journal

        Yes, this is how sound legislation is always written. Rather than trying to spell things out in technical details that will immediately be obsolete and also provide a roadmap for how to get around the letter of the law, they use subjective terms like "unreasonable discrimination" to allow judicial rulings to define and redefine it over time in keeping with the spirit of the law.

        No, it's not. It's how tyrannies are built. It's a way for an oppressive police state to arbitrarily decide when and against whom they are going to enforce the law. Fail to provide the right media support or bribe ... err, I mean "contribution", and you're targetted - and the law is simply made to apply.

        Sound legislation must disallow discrimination, provide equal protection, and enforce the tenets of the rule of law. It should be clear to anyone whether an action they take will violate the law or not. It should be unambiguous. In fact, overly broad or ambiguous legislation is often overturned on Constitutional grounds, and should be.

        It's a simple idea - if the laws are so many and confusing and open to interpretation, it means anyone and everyone can be said to be breaking the law at any time. And it's up to the enforcers to decide who to actually bring down.

        • I was going to object vociferously to the grandparent post, but I couldn't say anything that hasn't been said here.

        • +1

        • by Medievalist (16032) on Friday September 23, 2011 @02:18PM (#37494440)

          No representational symbolic system (such as legal language) that has a functional relationship with a practical reality (such as the human condition) can eradicate paradox and ambiguity. You cannot create laws that are both useful and incapable of alternate interpretations, that's why we have judges and juries. Lawyers and kings figured this out long before Kurt Godel wrote down a suspiciously similar principle.

          This is why it's better to have fewer laws, of course - what did Tacitus say? Oh, yes, In pessima republica plurimae leges - "In the most corrupt republic, the laws are most numerous". Lao Tse said it even earlier, and it's an idea that seems to have been independently derived throughout history.

          Fewer, simpler laws (like: "don't kill anyone who is not doing harm" and "don't take stuff that isn't yours") are not only easier to understand and enforce than a large body of complex law, they are less prone to corruption by the powerful.

          Hey, didja ever notice how after "deregulation" there are always more laws than before? Deregulation is just a corrupt politician's code word, brought to you by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment. I think it means somebody has their hand in your pocket; whenever you hear someone say "deregulation" you should probably reach for your gun.

        • by LordArgon (1683588) on Friday September 23, 2011 @03:14PM (#37495164)

          Medievalist had a great response to this, but I have a few points that I'd also like you to see.

          First, it's utterly ridiculous to expect laws to start and remain unambiguous. Any half-decent engineer knows there are many ways a once-clear specification can be misunderstood, especially as your system grows and interacts with other systems. People miss cases or simply can't yet conceive of new situations. The goal of the law is what's important; losing site of the goals is what leads to ridiculous lawsuits and the litigation-heavy society we have now.

          Second, unambiguous laws are not necessarily just. For example, if you exceed the speed limit by 1 mph, you've technically broken to law, but have you really violated the spirit of the law? I would argue no; I would argue that the spirit is to keep people driving responsibly and safely and I don't think there's a magic speed where everybody drives like that. In a perfect world, I would rather have a subjective law focused on safety and rely on intelligent, upright enforcers to uphold the spirit. It's not a perfect world so we end up somewhere in the middle.

          Finally, you're really focusing on the wrong thing. What we need are simple laws with clear goals and accountability for the people who enforce them (at all levels). Unfortunately, effective accountability is a very hard thing to create, but I'm sure we could do a hell of a lot better than we do now.

        • by imric (6240) on Friday September 23, 2011 @03:40PM (#37495464)

          You are incorrect. The type of law that you want to see is the type that is ALWAYS gamed; laws that disallow interpretation are the tools of tyranny. That's why the founders of the US specifically made the judicial system a separate branch of government on a par with the legislative and executive, rather than a simple tool of the executive, as the right would like it to be.

        • by tverbeek (457094)

          "Tyrannies" created by laws which outlined a principle instead of detailing specifics? Cite examples, please (so we can laugh at them).

          You have a point about overly broad and ambiguous legislation. But as you note, the courts in the U.S. throw those laws out, leaving those that are merely broad (like this) intact.

          The fact that you lump "too many" and "too broad" laws in together shows a misunderstanding of the issue, because those are two different things pulling in opposing directions. When laws are broa

    • And once it goes to the Supreme Court they will shoot it down because, despite what the UN says, internet access is not considered a right here, it's a privilege.

      I doubt there is anyone with the money to lobby on behalf of the consumer in this case (there never is) so, at the end of the day, this will get struck down and the ISPs will continue to throttle and do whatever they want because it's "their" network. Never mind the fact that there has been ridiculous amounts of public money involved in the creati

      • by tepples (727027) <tepples@nOSpAM.gmail.com> on Friday September 23, 2011 @01:15PM (#37493680) Homepage Journal

        internet access is not considered a right here, it's a privilege.

        Nor is wireless ISPs' access to FCC-owned spectrum a right; it's a privilege. Nor is wired ISPs' access to conduit under post roads a right; it too is a privilege.

        • I agree with you whole-heartedly, but the reality of the situation is that what is fair and just for the people is of little consequence to those in power anymore. The days of fighting through legal channels is pretty much at an end, because the legal channels are all corrupted and totally preferential towards those with the most money to throw at it.
          • by StikyPad (445176)

            You're so silly. There were never days where legal channels weren't corrupted and totally preferential toward those with the most money to throw at it. Things are actually much better than they've been by historical standards. You don't wind up in jail for missing a payment to a private entity on their say-so, for example.

            • Things are actually much better than they've been by historical standards.

              No, things were much better. From WWII-the late 70's, things were great. Then Reagan, the first fully Corporate Owned President, came along and they rectified that thorny "democracy" problem.

    • The Lawful bit it is prevent a loop hole where Illegal Content would become legal, at least unenforceable.

      So if you get blocked for Illegal Content just like if you get blocked for unreasonable discrimination you go to court to try to prove otherwise.

    • by danbuter (2019760)
      That's one of those little carrots they include to make lawyers really happy. Everyone knows it will lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of new court cases. All of which will pay attorneys millions of dollars.
  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:23PM (#37493016)

    I get it morons spam, but how about opening it for users on request when we want to have mailservers?

    Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

    • by 0racle (667029) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:29PM (#37493104)
      You might want to read your ToS on that residential line. I'll put money on you agreed not to run internet services on it.
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        I don't care. The internet is a two way street. If they don't want you using it they should not be allowed to call it internet service. They should have to sell it as "one way consumption only service for ports 80 and 443."

        • by geekmux (1040042) on Friday September 23, 2011 @01:09PM (#37493608)

          I don't care. The internet is a two way street. If they don't want you using it they should not be allowed to call it internet service. They should have to sell it as "one way consumption only service for ports 80 and 443."

          The term "internet service" 99.9% of the time in a consumer or residential contract is meant to DELIVER services to you, NOT for you to provide services to others. Of course, this works well because 99.9% of consumers only want or need exactly what is being delivered to them today.

          Interpret that all you want, but the bottom line is chances are your ISP does in fact offer a business-class service that would unblock port 25, 80, or 443. Most consumers bitch about it only because they're too cheap to pay for business-class service, that's all. Go lease your own T1 line if you want to see what "expensive" really is.

          If you want policy to change regarding consumer-class services, then shift the demand. Right now, ISPs don't have consumers in droves beating down their doors demanding they can run web and email servers. And it's not likely to happen anytime soon either.

          And no, I don't work for an ISP. This is just common sense.

      • by erroneus (253617)

        Network Neutrality rules should trump ToS agreements just as local, state and federal laws trump EULAs. There are some things they shouldn't be allowed to do.

      • by berzerke (319205)
        It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server, not running your own. Blocking port 25 prevents that, forcing the user to find an alternative port. Admittedly, that alternative is usually encrypted, so overall this is a good thing.
        • by 0racle (667029)
          Should not be a problem unless Verizons engineers are complete idiots and preventing you from talking to any SMTP server they don't own. Talking to someone else's SMTP server will make a connection TO other port 25 FROM your randomhighport. Residential internet typically blocks connections FROM randomhighport TO your port 25.
        • by tepples (727027)

          It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server

          If you want to connect to a smarthost in a datacenter to send mail, that's what port 587 out is for. If you want to connect from a machine in your residential IP address block to the recipient's SMTP server and send mail that way, that'll be confused with a spam zombie.

      • by The Moof (859402)
        You have a point about running server violating terms (which was specifically mentioned by the GP), but there are other reasons I want port 25 opened that don't run servers. For example, my router is dying to send me daily status reports by e-mail, and I would love to send them anywhere but root's local mailbox. However, AT&T refuses to open port 25 (unless I upgrade to a business account) to let the MTA relay the messages to a more practical e-mail address.
        • by tepples (727027)

          AT&T refuses to open port 25 (unless I upgrade to a business account) to let the MTA relay the messages to a more practical e-mail address.

          Have you tried configuring your router to relay on port 587 (SMTP message submission) instead?

      • by Hatta (162192)

        The internet protocol is peer to peer. If I cannot run services, I am not a peer, and therefore I do not have internet access. If they have advertised internet access, and do not provide internet access, they are breaking the law.

      • by Amouth (879122)

        well there is two parts.. they block port 25 incoming AND outgoing.. so if your on it you can't send e-mail via telnet. (and yes i send e-mail via telnet all too often)

    • by nmb3000 (741169)

      I get it morons spam, but how about opening it for users on request when we want to have mailservers?

      Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

      And I get it that 0.03% of users are like you and want to run a mailserver at home. Unfortunately, 60% of users have spam-spewing malware infesting their machine and blocking port 25 on all the big ISP networks is a huge step forward to reduce botnet/zombie spam.

      Does Verizon not have an SMTP gateway you can use? I know when on a Comcast connection I can simply open up smtp.comcast.net and it will relay mail for me. A quick look shows they probably do [verizon.com], though you might have to do smarthost and authenticat

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        They could open it on request only.
        I do not want to use their shitty gateway. I do not want them reading my mail, or filtering it or fucking touching it. I do not want to be reliant on one of those companies. I want real internet service, which means a dumb pipe. I don't care if I get bounced for what ip I have. I care about this seller committing what is in any sane sense of the word fraud. They advertise one thing and sell another.

      • Does Verizon not have an SMTP gateway you can use? I know when on a Comcast connection I can simply open up smtp.comcast.net and it will relay mail for me.

        I've read horror stories on Slashdot of ISP-provided SMTP relays having unacceptable availability. If you were to find that smtp.comcast.net was often down when you need to use it, what would you use instead?

    • by dbc (135354) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:50PM (#37493364)

      My ISP has this one right, I think. Port 25 and other well-known server ports that are popular among the SPAMinistas are blocked by default (on residential service lines). But opening them up is a simple matter of signing into a configuration page and clicking a button to open the port. They have a few words of warning on the web page, but don't stop you from doing it.

      Let's be realistic, many customers are going to be in the "What's a port?" crowd. They are the ones who's systems are likely to get compromised and have the least idea how to fix it. People who say "I want to run SMTP on port 25." are capable of finding the button on the ISP's web site and clicking it. Also, the ISP runs statistical monitors on anybody who opens port 25. Because you found and clicked the button to open port 25, the ISP has at least half a chance that an e-mail saying: "Dude, do you know your SMTP outbound traffic just spiked up by 20X today, and that you are sending out X MB per day now?" is likely to be read by a sentient being.

      Overall, I think they have the balance about right -- they don't get in your way, but they do things to minimize problems and workload caused by compromised customer systems.

    • by sgt scrub (869860)

      Internet service with blocked ports is not really internet service.

      I totally agree. The belief that allowing port 25 traffic to a user magically allows them to spam is a joke. Having an email server is not necessary for spam. Restricting outbound port 25 traffic is a bigger joke. It does not hinder spam in any way. Email sent over high ports >1024 (ie. virus/worms) makes up 90% of all email spam. Not only that, it is usually UDP traffic.

  • by fingers1122 (636011) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:27PM (#37493082)
    This is better than nothing, but it's only a matter of time before some of the "ambiguity" in the rules are exploited. What scares me most about net neutrality is that virtually no one outside of those who are actively interested know anything about it, and we've already seen a crazy propaganda campaign in the press to define net neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet."

    If we have any desire for true net neutrality to be upheld, we have to figure out a way to reframe this discussion in the media--and we have to do it quickly or we're going to soon end up with an Internet that is going to resemble broadcast TV more than the open web of information that it is now. I have a bad feeling in my stomach about how net neutrality is going to play out as it seems almost no one understands how vitally important it is.
    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:33PM (#37493166)

      You can't reframe it in the media. They are the ones you are fighting against.

      • Unfortunately, yes. But we are going to lose this battle if the conversation becomes about "government control" and not about freedom to communicate. Power structures all over the world fear the Internet as it is now--and they should. It is not in the interest of power structures to allow the public to communicate freely, and as a result they will eventually try to do away with it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532)

      What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

      • by cfalcon (779563) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:48PM (#37493330)

        The private companies that are federally subsidized monopolies? Go look at how all that pipe got laid. That's tax dollars at work. You want to look me in the eye and tell me that anyone can just go run a giant network of fiber? Because these turkeys sure didn't, and even if you could, you would need massive government participation to bury stuff everywhere.

        These things are "utilities" for a reason. This isn't like "the only difference between these guys and the store at the corner is total money". This is different.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        I agree they should be allowed to just as soon as they give up any right of ways or government subsidies/loans or tax credits.

        A company that survives by laying cable over my land without paying me by using the force of government should expect this. What is sauce for the goose...

      • by causality (777677)

        What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

        You really don't know how the telecoms came to run that "private" network, do you?

        Put it this way: if they built it with their own money, your argument would be on much firmer ground.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fingers1122 (636011)
          He probably cares very little about the fact that the government created the infrastructure of the Internet. People like him don't really believe in minimal government (as they love to claim); they believe in a very strong, robust government--but one that works only in favor of private business. We of course see this in the financial industry, where at the top, losses are socialized and gains are privatized--with no real effort to end the "to big to fail" policy. These people are not capitalist, they are Ma
      • Of course, those private companies use public resources, like land use/right-of-way and public spectrum, etc... and are usually considered to be (or be like) a utility. Many (most?) receive some sort of tax consideration as well and have to get municipal charters (permission to operate) in various localities... I'd argue that the right to regulate these companies like this exists as, obviously, do the companies. The difference of opinion is to what extent and I'd argue that the only leg on which these c
      • by s73v3r (963317)

        What scares me most about net neutrality is idiots like you thinking that companies can slice up the PUBLIC INTERENT however they see fit.

        If they want to "regulate their network traffic on their private network", then they need to have a private network to start with. The Internet is not a private network. If they want to regulate traffic, then they need to cut all connections to the greater Internet.

      • Then if it is all private then I should be able to remove all of their private equipment from my private property since I am not uisng it and they aren't paying me anything for hosting their cables. Charter is the local cable company and I don't have cable tv or cable internet but yet they have lines that cross my property so maybe I should go rent a ditch witch and return Charter's property. I mean come on I am a private entity with private property so I should be able to decide what runs across my propert
      • What scares me about net neutrality is that people actually believe a private company running a private network doesn't have the right to regulate its network traffic however they see fit.

        Keep in mind, along with these private companies getting government deals to shut out competition, these private companies tend to sue governments who want to provide similar service paid for with tax dollars. If they want the government to make them the sole source of the service, they should be subject to regulation.

      • by sjames (1099)

        Just as soon as they deposit money in my private bank account for running their private cable through my private property. That and surrender any exclusive franchise agreements they may have with local governments.

    • "The Media" have a vested interest in not accurately presenting the information. At the end of the day, it all comes down to money. Laws and regulations don't mean fuck all if you've got the capital and market share to protect you...two things ISPs have plenty of

      I suspect the first ISP that gets nailed on Net Neutrality will take it all the way to the Supreme Court and they will rule that the ISP's have every right to provide whatever service they want because "hey, nobody needs the internet." The UN dec

      • Or, SCOTUS could finally declare the broadband suppliers / ISPs as Common Carriers [wikipedia.org], in which case the ISPs would be screwed. While they have generally been successful at skirting this definition to date,

        Internet networks are, however, already treated like common carriers in many respects. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. Th

        • Or, SCOTUS could finally declare the broadband suppliers / ISPs as Common Carriers [wikipedia.org], in which case the ISPs would be screwed.

          I'm way too much of a pessimist to even entertain that notion. Citizens United v. FEC [wikipedia.org] and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion [wikipedia.org] is enough evidence in my mind to deduce that the Supreme Court is just another tool of Big Business, albeit not as obviously corrupted as our Legislative and Executive branches.

  • "unlawful" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday September 23, 2011 @12:35PM (#37493194)

    You guys do realize that everything you do on the internet is unlawful in one fashion or another, somewhere. It's like a police officer following you while you drive. At some point during the trip, regardless of who you are, you're going to do something that is an offense the officer can stop you for. The internet is no different.

    Look at how we've made breaking an EULA a crime. Tell me, how many EULAs do you interact with during your average browsing session? That's just one example... there's thousands more buried in a byzantine legal framework. So basically, the exception that they cannot disrupt "legal" traffic is a carte blanche exception to do whatever they want... because everything is illegal somehow.

    And if not, your ISP will simply adjust their EULA for their website, and set your default homepage to it, and viola.

    • "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

      She was a bit

      • by dkleinsc (563838)

        Ayn Rand is in fact completely wrong about this.

        For starters, in addition to cracking down on criminals, government also has the power to finance investments that otherwise wouldn't be made. For instance, every single one of the early trans-Atlantic trips was the result of a government-financed venture, because for a private financier the risk would be high and the rewards unclear at best. They also have the power to fend off other governments militarily, if it comes to that. That gives them quite a bit to

    • Before Andrew Jackson went into full ethnic-cleansing mode, he reasoned one way to deal with the native-American problem was to allow them to stay on their land but tell them they had to abide by state law. Obviously, this was impossible as the native way of life did not conform to US law. This gave him an ability to make the argument for removing the natives by force because he could claim that he was doing it because they were not following the law.

      These things happen in small steps. We're being treated
    • Soon, every adult will have to be paired up with a police officer. Even police officers will have to be paired up too. The rotation is random each day so as to not to form close relationships. We're all watchmen to ensure we become the perfect citizen. All actions are to be time and performed flawlessly. Robots, born and raised in the flesh. A handicap that will eventually need to be addressed.

  • There you go, one giant gaping abuse-hole.

  • The word "lawful" and "unreasonable" are thrown around a lot in this like they're some kind of barrier.
    You know as well as I that those on top can bend both the law and reason to their will.
    Replace these words with the word "any", and when this happens, then it shall be "fixed"
    Unless there is no blocking or discrimination of ANY content, this is not truly neutral.
  • The GOP-controlled House will move to zero out the FCC budget.
  • Well it has loopholes big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through, but it's a good start.

  • by eepok (545733) on Friday September 23, 2011 @02:23PM (#37494492) Homepage

    I haven't read the document, but here's a questions for those who have:

    Will the current document allow the practice of a provider putting a bandwidth cap on an account, but offering services immune to the cap?

    An example would be the user having a set cap of 50 GB per month (limiting video consumption from sites like Netflix), but the user's provider offers their own streaming movie service that, when used, does not contribute to the consumption limit.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.

Working...