Print
It’s an odd spectacle, government rule-making. And watching the process unfold in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) effort to regulate the Internet seems almost like an out-of-body experience. The basic thrust is easy to understand. The FCC would like for the Internet to remain open, or net neutral, regarding content. All comers to the Internet party should have the same right to move about the tubes as any of the other party-goers.
Seems reasonable, at least to users of the Internet, but not so reasonable to the providers of the Internet. They, the likes of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner, would like to regulate the party--giving some party-goers special access, while denying it to others. Sort of like putting a bouncer at the door. The Internet providers argue in this way they can make sure that the party doesn’t become too crowded; that those who attend will have a quality experience. Two methods for regulating access have been suggested: (1) curb certain types of Internet traffic, like Verizon did earlier this year with bit-torrenting; and (2) charge for preferential access.
The FCC is concerned that provider-based regulation could have some negative consequences, stymying the potential of the Internet, which up to now has thrived on free exchange. To this end the FCC has proposed six rules that would regulate the actions of Internet providers. These regulations won’t allow for a free-for-all on the Internet, as some deference must be paid to the needs of Internet providers to manage their systems and comply with legal requirements. But within this context the FCC seeks to make the Internet as neutral as it might be, with it’s fifth rule proposal requiring Internet providers “to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.”
Interestingly, this unanimous decision by the FCC (comprised of three Democrats and two Republicans), seems to be sitting well with all parties concerned--both sides conceding it could have been worse. What’s fascinating about this all is the absence of us, the ‘normal’ Internet users from this debate. The providers are there. The major services (like Google) are there. But we aren’t there, even though we are as likely to be impacted by any decision the FCC makes. Like I said: an out-of-body experience.
Image Credit: Federal Communications Commission, Camilo Sanchez/Wikipedia Commons
Comments are closed on this article
r7mr7m
October 23, 2009 at 12:02pm
Besides, anyone who thinks that, right now, what they are surfing is in
some way secret or confidential hasn't been reading their newspapers.
HA HA! Newspapers. Almost nobody is reading newspapers anymore. Especially, the people visiting this site. That's why they are asking politicians for a bailout. Newspapers... good one.
UndeniablyPC
October 23, 2009 at 4:52am
Read below to see what else was included in the new Net Neutrality rules:
Under the draft rules, reasonable network management would include reasonable
practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service:
- to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address qualityof-
service concerns;
- to address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful;
- to prevent the transfer of unlawful content, such as child pornography; and
- to prevent the unlawful transfer of content, such as to prevent copyright
infringement.
The draft rules also permit other reasonable network management practices.
For all of you that think yahhh! more bit torrent bandwidth for me, might want to think again. This not only gives ISPs the ability to inspect packets, but demands that they inspect packets to enforce copyright laws. Now, I am not a law man, or a politican, so I could be wrong in any account, but this seems to me like a very, very bad thing indeed.
Biceps
October 23, 2009 at 10:29am
I pay for the copyrighted content I download... so should everyone else. I am tired of paying MORE because of pirates who get it for free, everyone knows illegal downloads are the largest portion of bittorrent traffic. Inspect away. Besides, anyone who thinks that, right now, what they are surfing is in some way secret or confidential hasn't been reading their newspapers.
LVmonkey
October 25, 2009 at 4:24pm
For three reasons,
1) Bittorrent is not the issue. Copyright is the issue...and that battle has been waged since the cassette days. It was even an issue before then with 'free radio broadcasts'. And i guess you don't play WoW as the updates are Bittorrented to the client.
2)The "loss in sales due to pirating" has no firm basis in reality. NONE. There is no quantifiable way to accurately guess sales lost to pirating. Unless you are able to track it, accurately, which if it could be done would result in lawsuits.
3)The countries with the highest "reported pirating rates" per capita also have the "highest reported sales rates" per captia, accross the board, from music sales to movie sales to game sale...on the same products.
You have google, bing and yahoo! search and I would assume by your abilty to write a comment that you also have an ability to read. Maybe you should educate yourself on the topic. It's been a wash out for sometime with both the copyright legal speed bumps and the "ooOOOOoo evil pirate" excuse for raising prices on everything for sometime now.
Very convient excuse to raise prices, if you ask me. Especially on CDR's for example (in Canada). It's nice to know my digital pictures from my camera are helping to fund RIAA for their battles with 12 yr old "pirates"...
arch-chancellor
October 22, 2009 at 5:37pm
Internet is not free. Even in those cities that have "free internet" what is that costing the taxpayer? Hotels and coffee shops have "free internet" what does that do to the price of a room or cup of java?
If Con-cast has to provide the same level of service to someone torrenting to their cell phone as to me having diarrhea of the keyboard on some blog, how are they going to make up the costs? Is the government going to step in and freeze prices? Nixon tried that, we all know his place in history.
I thought I paid too much for my internet until it broke. The cable guy came out to my place, took out all the old crappy wire that had rotted, put in brand new wire, stayed around to make sure it worked to my satisfaction, and then turned down the adult beverage that I offered for his hard work. I was not charged for any of the time and material. Also my bill hasn't gone up in four years.
davidflory
October 22, 2009 at 4:04pm
I don't really care what the providers do with their networks as long as they provide what they sell you. I pay for unlimited, 24/7, 16 Mb internet access. That is what I paid for and that is what I should get. If providers cannot or do not want to provide that then don't sell it. What has been bothering the public, especially heavy users, is that we are being sold one things then being given something less than that. And yes, their is the fine print, but if the fine print is contradicted by the advertisement, it is null and void - can't say unlimited internet big and bold only at the same time limit it in the fine print. Problem for the ISPs is this, if they told you up front what you were really going to get, they would lose hundreds of paying customers but they also don't want to pay for the infrastructure to support what they are selling. I believe the net neutrality rules will actually help with this issue by making ISP support the Internet service they are selling.
JusTalkin
October 22, 2009 at 3:31pm
I still smell a rat. The FCC is a political organization and if you look at their recent history at least there's always something else coming. I'll bet that the final rule will have something added at the last minute that won't have anything to do with the actual debate of neutrality.
lien_meat
October 22, 2009 at 3:10pm
Personally, I would vote in favor of net nutrality.
My reason:
I don't want packet shaping to become prevelent.I understand that bittorrents and other traffic can max out bandwidth, but the consumers of the bandwidth should have a right to do that if need be.
I don't believe an ISP should be able to say "Oh, well, we don't want to give you what you PAID for, cause our crappy infrustructure doesn't support it, and we dislike torrent/ssh/rcp... traffic, so we are gonna packet shape the hell out of you".
It's just wrong. You don't get that from the electric company. They don't get to say that you can't use more than X amount of electricty for making a 6 foot tesla coil...why should ISP's be able to do essentially the same thing?If the current infrustructure doesn't support the traffic, then you are either hording profits instead of building decent infustructure, or you aren't charging enough. Make a good infrustructure, and it's just not a problem. ISP's are just greedy.
Sorry if I ranted, but I think the government's intended rules make PERFECT sense (this is odd, I usually think the government is full of it...), and if one of these companies gets them to change it, I will be really really unhappy with the government, not really with the ISP's, as I expect as much out of them.
### I'm an idiot, and I approve this message ###
LVmonkey
October 25, 2009 at 4:29pm
While they are at it I would suggest the phone companies place someone to monitor your phone calls and give you a cap on the amount of dirty words you can use. Maybe even bleep your conversations while you speak...I'm sure if they have enough money (as many isps offer phone services) for DPI services they should also have enough money to introduce something automated and simular for the phone services, as well.
xs0u1x
October 22, 2009 at 2:22pm
who gets to decide what "lawful content" and "lawful traffic" and the likes are? the internet companies or the government?
would this bill eliminate bandwith caps and the charging for higher bandwith limit's?
is the consumers "right to competition" stated in the bill mean basically it's not gonna change from what it is now, being either I get to "choose" between comcast, verizon, or some hole in the wall 9.95 dial up service?
Biceps
October 22, 2009 at 2:00pm
Ok, so you tell us there are 6 rules the FCC is going to put in place, but you aren't going to tell us what they are? That is not exactly what I would call detailed reporting.... come on, Bart, you can do better. You complain that the public isn't being included in the debate and then omit the most important information from your article? Seriously? What are the rules, dude?
Biceps
October 22, 2009 at 2:02pm
From the FCC document, in case anyone cares.
1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the
lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
2. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful
applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;
3. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using
on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the
network;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to
competition among network providers, application providers, service
providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a
nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network
management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and
content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in
this rulemaking.
routine
October 22, 2009 at 1:38pm
Government action always always always leads to unintended consequences:
Fiercedeity
October 22, 2009 at 2:57pm
I think any action comes with unintended consequences. That's just part of being human since we cannot foresee the future. However, there are times when government interference is necessesary for a healthy free markent economy. I feel that this is one of those times. Is this the right way to do it, though? That we will see.
