The COPE Act is in Thomas now, and the lies about it fly fast and furious in Nutrialand. See the bill here, and notice this:
‘‘(3) ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY.—The Commission shall have exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein. The Commission shall complete an adjudicatory proceeding under this subsection not later than 90 days after receipt of the complaint. If, upon completion of an adjudicatory proceeding pursuant to this section, the Commission determines that such a violation has occurred, the Commission shall have authority to adopt an order to require the entity subject to the complaint to comply with the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein. Such authority shall be in addition to the authority specified in paragraph (1) to enforce this section under titles IV and V. In addition, the Commission shall have authority to adopt procedures for the adjudication of complaints alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement or principles incorporated herein.
Nutria claim this means the FCC lacks the authortity to punish broadband abuse. Right.
The rules they’ll enforce are in Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities:
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
That doesn’t seem too complicated.
Here’s a fun game we can play. I call it “Word search on the COPE Act and related documents”:
block – 0 occurrences
filter – 0 occurrences
degrade – 0 occurrences
impair – 0 occurrences
AT&T’s anti-net-neutrality marketing site – “…[we] will not block, impair or degrade access to any legal web site, application or service, nor will we intentionally degrade the customer experience or the service delivery of content or application providers.”
Hmmm. I’m mystified. I would have thought I could’ve found at least one of those words in the COPE Act -or- the Broadband framework.
Maybe it’s just my copy, though. I could’ve sworn I was called a shameless liar for calling those terms AWOL.
Try this: “consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice & consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice” = no blocking or filtering.
And “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers” = no impairment or degrading.
Is this hard to follow?
Now tell me how an ISP filters spam and DOS attacks under your regulations.