FCC Chief Outlines New Net Neutrality Rules
Posted 09/21/09 at 08:42:17 PM by Ryan Whitwam
Comments
Print
Email
It was no surprise today when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech on Network Neutrality. In the speech, at the Brookings Institute, Genachowski suggested formalizing the FCC’s “principals” of neutral networks, making them official policy. The FCC Chair proposed two specific rules. The first would prevent ISPs from slowing any specific type of Internet traffic. This would, however, still allow for reasonable network management practices. The second rule would require ISPs to be completely transparent about what sort of network management practices they were using.
Network Neutrality has been of more mainstream interest since congressional hearings on the subject began a few years ago. Amidst all the talk of “a series of tubes’, very little got done. Now Genachowski is making his case in no uncertain terms. “I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet,” said the FCC Chair. He went on to clarify that the proposed changes would also apply to wireless providers.
For their part, ISPs are almost universally against the changes. They claim that Net Neutrality requirements would prevent them from managing their networks. Genachowski attempted to assuage their fears, explaining that violations of the proposed rules would be handled individually. The FCC will begin seeking public input and feedback at its meeting in October. So, do you feel we need regulation to ensure a neutral Internet?
double post
Submitted by opticallog on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 10:42am
double post, sorry
A funny idea
Submitted by tkid124 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 8:11am
I just had a great idea, the government could require that ISPs not charge over a certain price, tell them where they will lay lines, and what capacity the lines will be able to carry. I believe the Soviet Union took this approach.
I think the biggest issue we have is different opinions on if we should follow the constitution as the letter of the law or a guideline. If it is a guideline then yes, let the government regulate that my ISP has to do things that benefit me. If it’s the letter of the law, then sadly they should attempt to limit competition, charge me as much as I am willing to pay. AKA follow the law of supply and demand.
Submitted by Biceps on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 11:47am
So then you don't have a problem with the fact that your local ISP is probably a government-mandated monoply that has raised prices over 150% over the past 5 years? THAT is more socialist than whatever it is you are trying to explain above. Dude, if there is only ONE supplier, then the Supply half of your argument is at that supplier's mercy. Comcast is a perfect example of this. Don't argue to let competition and the market work things out when there is no competition in the market you are debating. Seriously half-baked argument, IMHO.
The other thing you seem to be missing here, my oh so patriotic friend, is that this Net Neutrality is actually a landmark case in protecting our First Amendment Rights - the Freedom of Speech. Do you want Comcast to be able to limit you watching videos because it interferes with their cable business? Or, what if an ISP has a political leaning and decides that its customers will no longer be able to access websites of political candidates who oppose their favorite? Sound good? For my part, I think it is nice to see the FCC has FINALLY grown a pair and is trying to stand up and do what is right. Net Neutrality is possibly one of the most important issues of our time.
Submitted by tkid124 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 4:32pm
While I don't agree with a business being able to prevent someone from looking at something, I do support their right to say, "You can't look at it on our equipment."
You have every right to look at whatever politician’s website you like, and Congress can do nothing about it, nor can I, but I can prevent you from doing so on my home network. If I own a business that provides network access to you, then I have the right to make a decision of blocking any content I desire. I HOWEVER DO HAVE A MORAL AND LEAGLE OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE THIS TO YOU. I want it to be clearly known, I am not recommending that business do this, but saying that they have the right.
The 1st amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Congress has no right to prevent us from speaking, posting most anything online, or most any other form of expressing opinion. However an ISP is not congress.
P.S. I do have an issue with the government anything in the market. I feel sorry for those of you who don't have competition in your local market, Dallas does. We are not entitled to the Internet; there is no reason that any company should have to give us unrestricted access. There is a reason for companies to get rid of bandwidth limits, it’s called ‘customers want it’.
Hmm...
Submitted by 1337Goose on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 5:40pm
You make an interesting point. I think the Internet has gotten to a point where it is an extension of our natural human, day-to-day interactions. While I understand what you're saying about ISP's having the ability to control their own networks, I think it's dangerous to let ISPs control the free flow of information.
~Goose
Well...
Submitted by Ryan Whitwam on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 5:39pm
"We are not entitled to the Internet"
There was a time we didn't think people were entitled to reasonable access to electricity and indoor plumbing. Now utilities are available to basically everyone, and are regulated so they stay that way. I'd argue the Internet is a utility. If you can't access the Internet, you will be rapidly left behind in the new economy.
Submitted by opticallog on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 12:35pm
So the fix to that government mandated monopoly would be more government mandates? Creating another regulatory commission that that monopoly can now lobby to even further increase barriers to entry, further strengthening their monopoly, is not the answer. We've already seen this before. Intentions don't matter, only actual results do.
but intentions START
Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 12:38pm
but intentions START everything. What is your solution if we can't use intentions as a starting ground? Magical Ponies?
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Submitted by opticallog on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 2:27pm
Why do you need a solution for which there is no problem? Where has an ISP attempted to discriminate among traffic on it's network that has not been a cataclysmic failure? It's likely not even technically possible for a tier 1 ISP to attempt to discriminate packet traffic in a way that is economically feasible, in that it's likely more cost effective to simply increase network capacity than it would be to employ people, hardware, and software to restrict usage. Do you really think that a for-profit company with relatively limited resources is going to be able to win a war against tens of millions of disgruntled users ready to find and publicize workarounds? How exactly is that working out for the RIAA and DRM? This entire controversy is ultimately about insuring ourselves against something that isn't a threat whatsoever, at the cost of creating new regulation that could easily be co-opted to restrict competition and hurt the consumer, as has often been the case (see the ICC).
Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 2:37pm
your new to this site aren't you?
Hey gang can somone fetch all the links about Bandwith caps, de proirtizing torrents to lower through puts, throtteling, and all the other "non issues" these for profit telecoms have been doing?
Edit:
Here's some to start you off
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/comcast_rolls_out_throttling_system_across_all_markets
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/internet_provider_cox_begin_selectively_throttling_internet_traffic
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/french_antip2p_bill_will_kick_users_net_could_spread_rest_world
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/congressman_fighting_veto_isp_data_capping
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Submitted by opticallog on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 3:19pm
Your first and fourth links do not describe packet discrimination, it describes limitations on total bandwidth usage, which has nothing to do with net neutrality. The best way to address this is by a) media pressure, and b) increased competition and the elimination of government mandated monopolies to put pressure on ISPs to provide the service consumers demand. Most monopolies today are the direct result of special privileges granted them by government bodies. I do not know why you think more government bodies and more government regulation, which have produces these monopolies in the first place, will fix this. If anything, eliminating the FCC altogether would be much more effective, as they wouldn't be able to grant special operating privileges to these companies, and they'd have to stick with
Your third link is also not about net neutrality, but about a proposed bill that a) hasn't been passed, and b) is of dubious effect anyways, as it's questionable if the law is even enforcible, given the amount of time and money required to monitor all the internet traffic in France. Even so, this is nothing compared to the draconian policies of Red China, which still can't prevent it's users from getting around it's own firewalls, even though it has the backing of the state and is not just a piddly private company.
Your second link does in fact describe one ISP attempting to employ packet discrimination on it's network. The best way to combat this is by eliminating their monopoly of service and by elimination of the government regulation that created that very monopoly. That regulation was "intended" to protect consumers, but in reality did nothing of the sort. We do not need additional regulation, which will ultimately be co-opted to benefit those it is meant to restrict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture).
What this goes back to is what will best protect the current neutral, end to end state of the internet? We already have concrete examples as to how increased government regulation will not benefit us as consumers, even when it comes out of the best of intentions. What matters most is end results, not ideals, and the best way to accomplish these end results of a free internet is not by using government bodies that are easily co-opted for the gain of the network providers to the detriment of the consumer.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-626.pdf
Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 3:51pm
sooooooooooooooo your solution to goverment regulation anf FCC intents is to open things up so their competition."But Geee ollie how is Mr. NewCom going to compete with Intel er Comcast and their anti competitve bullying"
By your own logic "competion" wont work either
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Submitted by TheMaverick on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 3:29pm
I really don't get it...
How come passing a law to prevent traffic shaping is a bad thing?
I skimmed over your arguments, and it sounded like you were saying something about this law causing a monopoly?
I'm not doubting you, I just need some clarification as to why you're opposed to this.
Submitted by opticallog on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 7:49am
I am not arguing in favor of packet discrimination, I'm arguing against government attempts to regulate and mandate it. My argument is basically this: Government regulations rarely accomplish their well-intended goals, primarily because of regulatory capture. Small groups that have high stakes interest in the outcomes of regulatory decisions and policies can be expected to spend significant time and resources to influence these outcomes, while large groups of people with small stakes in these outcomes (each individual consumer) will typically not. As a result, the groups government intend to police with regulation more often than not end up with undue influence on the outcomes and results of this regulation, and they use this government power to benefit themselves. This is what happened with the ICC which was created to prevent price gouging by railroads on fares, but ended up creating service monopolies by locality, and restricting who could provide interstate shipping services via an overly harsh and restrictive licensing policy. This is basically exactly what we have with the FCC now. They restrict who can broadcast via their draconian licensing and permit policies, they create government sanctioned service monopolies like Comcast, and they attempt to restrict free speech content over the airwaves that they license and control. The FCC doesn't protect consumers, they protect the market shares of communication companies at the expense of consumers. Ever wonder how as government regulation has caught up to technology and starts to throw it's weight around, these giant, behemoth companies like Comcast pop up and get the balls to try and curtail internet traffic, as opposed to being forced to expand the bandwidth of their own network?
Furthermore, there is ample evidence that it is not economically beneficial for ISPs to attempt to practice packet discrimination in a free market (This is discussed in great detail in the following policy analysis: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-626.pdf). It's actually quite a fascinating article, it does discuss Comcast's failed attempts to practice packet discrimination on its network, and I would encourage anyone to read it.
Submitted by TheMaverick on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 2:11pm
Thanks for the clarification. I understand now.
What do you suggest be done in areas where monopolies already exist? It makes it very easy to get away with traffic shaping in these regions.
Submitted by opticallog on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 10:41am
A dismantling of the FCC policies that sanction and encourage these regional monopolies for one, culminating in the elimination of the FCC. It would have to be a graduated process of further deregulation, but it would ultimately result in increased competition and better service for consumers.
Submitted by opticallog on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 8:03am
The ultimate problem with this is the law of unintended consequences. It's nice for people to have the good intentions to want to create a formalized stamp of government approval for "net neutrality," but in practice, that isn't what ultimately ends up happening with increased government oversight and regulation. Creating new regulatory bodies to regulate the net will simply provide a way for special interest groups to lobby and legislate for their own benefit to the detriment of consumers.
This is exactly what happened with the Inter-state Commerce Commission, a regulatory body created out of the good intentions to protect consumers from exorbitant prices charged by the railroad companies, but in practice it simply gave the railroad companies (and eventually trucking / transportation companies) a regulatory agency to lobby and stack with their own industry insiders in order to restrict competition and create their own monopolies for various service areas.
What will ultimately happen if "Net Neutrality" becomes governed by a regulatory body is that ISPs will use the regulatory agency to enforce restrictions on entry into the business of providing access to the net, reducing their own competition and creating an effective oligarchy of ISPs, which will only serve to increase consumer costs.
Keep the internet free from tyranny!
Submitted by ErrantConstruct on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 8:05pm
Yeah, I think we do need the government to step in and ensure the net stays open. This is what I think government should interfere in, because as we all saw in Bioshock, pure capitalism with no rules ends in genetic freaks chasing underage girls to try and.... maybe the analogy breaks down a bit. Or we could trust the telecoms to do the right thing and work for the best interests of everyone involved. Ya know, since they have such a good track record.
Submitted by fullur on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 8:01pm
The real question you need to ask is if the Federal Government has any authority to regulate such a thing. The answer is no.
Submitted by Biceps on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 12:31pm
the government paid for the lines to be put in. You know, those federally subsidized cable-laying projects - the budgets for which came from our tax dollars? Plus, most ISPs are, like most utilities, running government-authorized monopolies. If we permit these companies local monopolies, then we should reserve the right to regulate them.
Submitted by WALT_OWNS_YOUR_FACE on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 8:25pm
The answer is actually yes, dumbass. This is about regulating American businesses who operate within this country, meaning that they are subject to rules and regulations set by the government. If they don't like it, then they don't have to operate in this country, simple as that.
Personally, I'm all for it. I'm tired of all our internet providers deciding what we can use our bandwidth for. They're upset about it because they want to continue screwing over their customers unrealistic pricing and limiting how much bandwidth we can use. Regulations are a very necessary evil sometimes.
Well, being the Libertarian
Submitted by dag1992 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 5:06am
Well, being the Libertarian I am, I don't believe the FCC should exist, government is big enough and is too far into our personal lives as it is. On the other hand, the ISPs are pissing me off. So, I guess it is a necessary evil. Jeez, greed sucks...
Submitted by ErrantConstruct on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 8:06pm
What do you mean? Do they have any authority to regulate TV or radio then?
Very much so they do.
Submitted by marshallladd on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 4:03am
Very much so they do. Remeber the janet jackson bbob thing. FCC stepped in. Everytime someone swears on broadcast tv, it gets bleeped. Why? The FCC. The FCC has all the power to enforce net nuetrality, and thank god. ISP's want to limit traffic so you can't watch TV over HULU and such, or use phone services like vonage. They want you to buy their premium cable package and digital phone service. They are anti-competetive, and anti-innovation. Never thought I'd say this but hooray for the FCC.
Submitted by Toady00 on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 9:02pm
If you investigate the FCC a little, you'd find that they are the Federal Communications Commition. I think that internet falls somewhere under communication. Of course they have authority over ISPs. One of the problems with ISPs regulating themselves is that they want to regulate how much data you use, to stop you from being able to access free content over the internet. Most broardcasting corporations now have all their shows avaliable online. When Time Warner or Comcast sells cable tv and internet, do you think they want you to just get internet and stop buying cable. Of course not. They want to stop you from streaming video. They also don't want to spend the money the promised they would to update the infrastructure. If they can keep user bandwidth down they can stall the upgrades and line their pockets more thoroughly.
And telecos say that if users don't like it they can switch to another carrier. Most places don't have many options. I have a 12Mbps/756kbps connection through TWC. Other than how miserably slow the upload speed is, there is no other ISP in Charlotte, NC that can offer similar speeds. I might be moving to Atlanta soon, and I was researching the ISPs there, and low and behold, the only one I could find was Comcast. A buddy of mine later told me that he had AT&T U-Verse in ATL, but hell thats still only two providers. If they want to screw over customers, they have no choice but to either take the abuse or switch and have their service severly effected.
And its not like its easy to start up a ISP company in the first place. All the major telecos are holding all the keys. And you have to pay them to get access. I can't remember the exact number but I think the vast majority of the nations internet backbone is owned by either Verizon or AT&T. So if one ISP is availible in an area and their service sucks, you have a vaccuum that a new ISP could fill. But no one can afford to pay for access to the backbone, and to lay the infrastructure they need to service all their new clients, it is just not feisable. Its kind of like energy, you can only have one company supply you with energy, there is no competition. To keep that company from becoming corrupt, and abusing its monopoly, the government regulates energy. The same thing needs to happen here.
Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 8:51am
Amen
we have wherei live <my city> Water & Power and...that's it.
We have SoCal Gas Company, that's it.
Since their can be only one the goverment regulates it. But eventhough i only have charter and ATT no one regulates those.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.