Version courte : la victoire n'est pas totale (les services spécialisés ne sont pas morts dans la bataille) et n'est pas encore assurée (possible contournement par le congrès).


« The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.

The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile [NDLR : excellent point ! En France, c'est bien sur les accès mobiles que l'on voit le plus d'atteintes en ce moment] broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.

[...]

The vote was 3-2, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans against.

[...]

The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" [NDLR : jusque là, c'est excellent quoi qu'il manque la non surveillance et la non altération des communications] and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.

[NDLR : donc la neutraltié des réseaux a été tronquée et les services spécialisés ont gagnés car ils n'ont pas été fermement encadrés (ils sont tolérables seulement si aucune autre offre équivalente techniquement ou en service rendu à l'utilisateur n'existe). Bah oui : des offres VOIP concurrentes, il y'en a d'autres (OVH en France, par exemple). Pourquoi uniquement celle de l'opérateur qui vous fournit l'accès au Net devrait être priorisée au détriment des autres ? Dailymotion est une filiale d'Orange. Le lien (administratif mais aussi au niveau interconnexion réseau) est donc direct entre Orange et Dailymotion, ça ne passe pas par Internet donc Orange pourrait prioriser Dailymotion au détriment de Youtube avec ce régime de régulation. Autrement dit, toute PNI (interconnexion privée entre deux opérateurs) pourra contourner cette régulation àmha.]

The reasonable network management exception applies to blocking and throttling but not paid prioritization. [NDLR : excellent point]

There are additional Title II requirements that go beyond previous net neutrality rules. There are provisions to investigate consumer complaints, privacy rules, and protections for people with disabilities. Content providers and network operators who connect to ISPs' networks can complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" interconnection rates and practices. There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets. [...]

The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks. This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling. As such, the vote does little to boost Internet service competition in cities or towns. But it's an attempt to prevent incumbent ISPs from using their market dominance to harm online providers, including those who offer services that compete against the broadband providers' voice and video products. [NDLR : huuum, ça compense un peu les services spécialisés... à voir l'implémentation derrière...]

[...]

Today's order could face both legal challenges and action from Congress. Republicans have proposed legislation that would eliminate Title II restrictions for broadband providers and vowed that the FCC vote is just the beginning of the debate.

Although many ISPs publicly oppose the new rules, the industry is by no means united against the FCC. Sprint and T-Mobile US have each said the FCC's proposal would not hurt their business. And while a good number of small broadband providers oppose the imposition of Title II rules, others support Wheeler. The NTCA Rural Broadband Association, which represents rural ISPs, said yesterday that it supports applying Title II to broadband networks.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, spoke to the commission via video. He credited the openness of the Internet with allowing him to create the Web 25 years ago without having to ask "permission."

[...]The full net neutrality order has not been published yet. The FCC's majority is required to include the Republicans' dissents in the order and "be responsive to those dissents," Wheeler said. The order will go on the FCC's website after that process. The rules will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with one small exception. Enhancements to the transparency rule must undergo an additional review by the Office of Management and Budget because they make changes to the one part of the 2010 net neutrality order that survived court challenge. [NDLR : attendons donc la publication complète et les analyses qui suivront] »


Un dernier point me laisse dubitatif : on est sur de la régulation télécoms semblable à ce que pourrait faire l'ARCEP si le contexte législatif derrière le lui permettrait. Pour moi (comme pour d'autres comme Benjamin Bayart), la neutralité des réseaux doit relever de la loi avec des sanctions pénales à la clé car le pouvoir des FAI sur le citoyen est monstrueux.


L'avis de l'EFF (trop optimiste à l'heure actuelle, à mon goût) : https://www.eff.org/fr/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win
« That’s great for making sure websites and services can reach ISP customers, but what about making sure customers can choose for themselves how to use their Internet connections without interference from their ISPs? To accomplish this, the FCC has banned ISPs from blocking or throttling their customers’ traffic based on content, applications or services—which means users, hackers, tinkerers, artists, and knowledge seekers can continue to innovate and experiment on the Internet, using any app or service they please, without having to get their ISP’s permission first.

[...]

But now we face the really hard part: making sure the FCC doesn’t abuse its authority.

For example, the new rules include a “general conduct rule” that will let the FCC take action against ISP practices that don’t count as blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. As we said last week and last year, vague rules are a problem. The FCC wants to be, in Chairman Wheeler’s words, “a referee on the field” who can stop any ISP action that it thinks “hurts consumers, competition, or innovation.” The problem with a rule this vague is that neither ISPs nor Internet users can know in advance what kinds of practices will run afoul of the rule. Only companies with significant legal staff and expertise may be able to use the rule effectively. And a vague rule gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. That means our work is not yet done.  We must stay vigilant, and call out FCC overreach. »

J'attends l'avis de LQDN/FFDN sur le sujet.