Net Neutrality Being Examined by FTC 176
elrendermeister writes to tell us Computerworld Security is reporting that the Federal Trade Commission has formed an Internet Access Task Force to evaluate the validity of claims that large broadband providers should be able to limit or block web content from competitors. From the article: "Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras on Monday also called on lawmakers to be cautious about passing a Net neutrality law, which could prohibit broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from giving their own Internet content top priority, or from charging Web sites additional fees for faster service. [...] 'While I am sounding cautionary notes about new legislation, let me make clear that if broadband providers engage in anticompetitive conduct, we will not hesitate to act using our existing authority,' she said. 'But I have to say, thus far, proponents of Net neutrality regulation have not come to us to explain where the market is failing or what anticompetitive conduct we should challenge.'"
Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Wait for an election year if it is an "election topic" (stem cells, flag burning, etc)
2. Wait for a corporation to give you a large "donation" and then vote however they want you to.
monopoly and false advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
Its all in the name. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just my 2 cents and hunch
Re:Someone clarify (Score:5, Insightful)
You pay for your providers full cable package, so you get all the channels. However, PBS has decided not to pay the "premium service fees" set by Big Cable, Inc., where as NBC has paid them plenty of money. You like PBS, and watch it a lot. Slowly but surely, the signal for PBS is getting fuzzier. You can still watch the shows, but the picture isn't as crisp as it is for NBC because Big Cable has decided he'd prefer your eyes on NBC, who pays them money. So he throws some noise onto the PBS frequency.
That's what we need to prevent.
Only if it suits them (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when did the FTC all the sudden start taking this anti-legislation stance? So they will only legislate issues after-the-fact? Let Comcast, Verizon, AT&T bully the market, then we will see if we decide to do anything about it . . . right!
The thing that net neutrality proponents are proposing is resistance to current talks of creating a tiered internet:
"In essence, network neutrality regulations proposed by Senators Snowe and Dorgan[4] and Representative Markey bar ISPs from offering Quality of Service enhancements for a fee.
--From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:Someone clarify (Score:4, Insightful)
It is commonly accepted that TV is a very difficult market to enter. My neighbor wouldn't have the capital to create a scrapbooking TV channel, but she could certainly start a scrapbooking Yahoo group.
Tiered Internet does make sense -- but only if you tier based on application and not by content. In my opinion, VoIP should go quicker than HTTP. However, I don't want my ISP limiting my HTTP traffic by allowing google.com to come through unmetered, but at the same time limit money.cnn.com because Google decided to pay my ISP more.
Re:Its all in the name. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone clarify (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with not having net neutrality is that even though there isn't a true monopoly it seems that the big ISP's work together to make more money, and that doesn't benefit the consumer.
As a consumer, why would you want it so you have to pay more, and have a nickel-and-dime service. We are already paying surcharges and fees for things that shouldn't have a fee or surcharge (note: Verizon and Cingular are famous for this).
Sometimes legislation, although unfortunate, is required to protect the consumers from being unfairly treated. The ISP's are already making money from you, and also making money from the websites that you go to. They are trying to double, and triple charge everyone to pad their pockets.
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, taking action before there was a problem would avoid the disruption, but the FTC is on the side of the people who stand to benefit from the "problems" that would be prevented.
He who hesitates is screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
But the FTC's version of "not hesitating" is to establish a blue-ribbon panel to look into setting up a commission to investigate the idea of setting up a web site to solicit people's opinions. Even if I trust the FTC to be acting in good faith, I worry that the cable/telco providers would have somewhere between one and five years to stomp certain web sites to death before the FTC is able to act on their "existing authority".
I mean, how long has Microsoft been in antitrust litigation?
Re:Just because... (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean, "Swift" FTC Justice? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Crime? what crime? You mean rapid delivery of internet service is a crime?
2. Crime? What crime? The boss says put it on the back burner...
3. Crime? No it's "market forces" delivering "better" service.
And then there's the "swift" justice delivered in Microsoft's Monopoly conviction. A conviction is cold comfort if you're one of the guys they ran out of business.
Oh yeah, they are on the case...
Re:Someone clarify (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of net neutrality means that an ISP can prevent me from accessing content hosted by someone who uses a competing ISP unless I, or they, "pay extra". They're already "paying extra" to interconnect in the first place!
Do we really want to reduce the internet to a bunch of transiently connected BBSes?
Open your eyes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose something can't fail if it doesn't exist. "The market" only exists if there's a real choice of options, and when it comes to the U.S. version of broadband internet, "the market" has never existed on a meaningful scale. The choice is between either DSL from the bell-affiliated telco (which itself is most likely a monopoly) or cable from the likes of Comcast (or some other similar monopolistic cable TV company) or no higher speed access at all, with some places not even having both DSL or cable to choose from. That is not "the market" in the sense that Chairwoman Majoras would like to seem to be talking about.
If the comments of Chariwoman Majoras are to be believed, we should soon see the government investigating behavior itself has allowed. That would be rather interesting, and I'd tune in to see the feds stumble over their tongues trying to legitimately explain why having so few real choices in paid TV service/broadband service/land line phone service benefits me. I'd like to see why the companies that provide these services are so damn sacred that their acts can't even be challenged. I want to know why it is that government-funded and supported companies are allowed to even think that they have the right to tell me what sources of information I can and cannot seek. That, more than anything, is how I view the debate.
A Matter of Diversity of Choice for Consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey Government!
If there must be a Tiered Internet (and I fear we won't have a choice), then:
Oh yes; the DMCA will become a big part of this.
The quality of the Free Market is not measured by how easy it is for Corporations to regulate the market.
The quality of the Free Market is a matter of the diversity of choices that are available to consumers.
I have no problem with a Tiered Internet that gives us more choices;
I have a problem with anything that allows Corporations to reduce the number of choices;
especially, if they gain control of the regulatory agencies.
Here comes the New FCC.
Sigh. More netopian whining (Score:2, Insightful)
What, exactly, *is* the 'Internet'?
Seriously. Is it just a collection of computers? A specific network protocol? Are we going to get into the last mile issue? Are the users part of the 'Internet' (sic)? What about the copper/fiber/colocation facilities? Peering points? Are private agreements part of the Internet or not?
Like 'world peace' I doubt we could get a common agreement on just what is and is not 'the Internet'. Without that, this entire debate is nothing but drivel. It's like arguing about whether or not Invisible Pink Unicorns might have blue eyes.
And what, exactly, do people mean by 'neutrality'? It's realllllly, realllly easy to spout off nonsense that uses words like 'neutrality' and 'equality' and 'opportunity' and 'freedom' to get people all riled up without getting a firm definition of what, exactly, does the speaker mean by that. The classic line is, I believe, from 'Animal Farm' -- "Some animals are more equal than others."
(Oddly, the current 'freedom' people have on the Internet may be due to exactly the lack of definition of what is 'the Internet'. With a hard definition, we could start excluding 'non-Internet' things from 'the Internet'. So, regardless of which side of the illusionary 'net neutrality' issue people are on, in trying to define the issue one way or the other, both sides will have to define 'The Internet'. As soon as that happens, then the exclusion will begin. (i.e. if the 'net neutrality' (sic) proponents have their way, then differing levels of service become 'non-Internet'. Let the purge of the heretics begin!)
Re:Just because... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about paying for faster connections; it's about paying for more _reliable_ connections. For example, if, say, Verizon's VoIP has a higher priority than, say, Skype's, your Skype call will skip, as the packets will have a harder time being routed (They'll have to wait in line at the router until it deigns to pass it along).
Which, of course, brings us to the nub of the matter: Mr. Stevens, being an apparently paid and scripted actor for the Telecom industry, suggested that e-mail, for example, would be given higher prio than other services. How long do you think it will be before filesharing clients start overriding port 25 for the purpose of dumping on massive amounts of content (massive amounts of content)?
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not! The role of government is not to preemptively pass legislation against anything that might conceivably hurt someone. We have fair trade and "anti-trust" statutes on the books, with the ostensible purpose of preventing businesses from abusing monopoly powers to hurt their customers. We have a common law system in which, if someone performs some unjust action that injures you, you can be compensated for it. The notion that government should be there to protect you against any potential wrong by means of legislation is a very dangerous idea, and it's fostered by people who have their hands on some government power, and realize that they can gain even more power by expanding the scope of the government's responsibility.
Need more to work with? Okay, this is Slashdot. We complain a lot about the TSA, right? How they put forth these regulations that are not only inconvenient, but actually useless at achieving their stated goals, right? But they do it to give the appearance of solving a problem. That's what the hypothetical "net neutrality commission" would be doing. Creating and enforcing regulations on the actions of internet carriers. They won't be beneficial to the providers, because of course the burden of proof will be placed on them to show that they're not doing anything "wrong". And they won't be beneficial to customers either, first because the system will be easily manipulated (this is gubmint, remember?), and second because the providers will demand additional fees to cover their new responsibilities. In fact, it won't benefit anyone, besides the "only fit for government work" people who will get jobs out of it. But it will make a vocal minority happy and give the appearance of "getting something done". It will convince daeg that they're "fixing it now beore it becomes a problem".
Sound like a good deal?
Re:Just because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its all in the name. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just because... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they are marketing and selling one thing and delivering another, we have a problem, and that is why us techno geeks have pushed this definition. Not to force them to make all connections the same, but to be up front about it and not market and sell a limited connection as a full-on "internet connection."
For example, I have internet service through Comcast - you don't see them marketing this as a browse only internet connection, though that is in fact what it is. They restrict the use of servers to their "business class" service. So I don't really have a real "internet connection" unless I pay more money. Again, you aren't ever going to see them state that upfront in any presentations they make to the public.
Call it "truth in advertising" if you will. If they want to create different classes/speeds/whatever of internet service, they have to clearly differentiate them so people will know what they are getting. They need to be upfront and honest.
Irrespective of all that, if one takes the view that the fundamental unit of communication on the internet is the packet, then one can easily take the view that all these packets should be treated the same by all involved in their transport (ISPs and backbone folks). Call it an egalitarian viewpoint if you will that all packets are created equal. This is clearly not a POV these folks are willing to even discuss, because all their plans are based on being able to prioritize different types of traffic. Plans that are fundamentally grounded in the telco/cable mindset of establishing marketing differentialized direct connections from a source to a destination and, most importantly, charging more for them.
Everyone involved in this knows that the only reason one could make the case for charging users (or providers) more for this type of service is if it offers something above and beyond a stock internet connection. And since they can't sell long distance, or 800 lines or premium channels or pay-per-view the only thing that could possibly be is speed/priority. They aren't providing the content, just the connection - they have no other way to "add value" to the "consumer experience" beyond selling the base internet access. And they are SO jealous of all the money being made over "their pipes."
Everyone also knows that the experience of the folks implementing Internet2 is that the only reason for packet prioritization is if you are NOT going to upgrade your "tubes" to make more bandwidth available all around. And THAT my friends is the 2000 lb gorilla they WILL NOT talk about. If there is enough bandwidth there is no need for packet prioritization - beyond artificial marketing based ones, that is.
So do we have an internet whose structure is robust and determined by technical considerations or one that is a craven creature bowed and bent by marketing droids?
Your choice!
No, the real issue is video content (Score:3, Insightful)
What the Telco's want to do is to sell video content - provide VDSL service at a loss and make it up in profit on the video content. If Google has the same access to the consumers as the Telco's, they can put a lot of pressure on the Telco's prices, hence profits.
Turns out there is another thing limiting the Telcos attempts at marketing video - most localities already have cable companies paying franchise fees for providing video service - and the franchise regulations either prohibit competition or require the competitor to wire the entire locality to prevent cherry picking. The telco's have succceeded in getting a few states to overturn the franchise laws and are working on congress to overturn the laws nationwide - a big eff'ing mistake IMBO.
Re:Just because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. I had an ISP once that did that. I was in an apartment building that contracted to get a good deal on Internet service for the building (it wound up not being a good deal, because the landlord apparently got confused about the price he was quoted, told us the artificially low price, we gave the thumbs-up, then he realized his mistake and was screwed, but we still had to pay three times what we had agreed to initially) and they put the whole building behind NAT with one IP address. What you said is almost the exact same line that I gave to the landlord and to the ISP. Needless to say, they weren't interested in listening.
The primary moral of my story, at least, is that if you care about your Internet service don't let someone that doesn't know a thing about computers order it on your behalf. I was talking to the guy and he said that he was hooking up web-enabled security cameras in his house, and he actually set up multiple accounts with Insight (the local cable company), all with dynamic IP addresses, to try to accomplish this. What's sad is that he apparently talked to Insight and this is what they told him he should do. Whatever lets them sell more connections, though I'm kind of surprised they didn't offer him a more expensive rate with static IPs for the cameras.
Re:Just because... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Net will survive the FCC. But I wonder what it all means for the United States as a market place. Software patents, 0DMCA, Patriot Act, and now a clueless FCC. What next? Is the US a safe place for business? I doubt so. Time for you to move crucial facilities oversees to divert risks.
You are talking crap (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why you have an army, everstanding, to meet any foreign attacks, to intervene before the attack occurs and reaches your mainland.
This is where child abuse, protection laws and so on are put forth, in order to prevent abuse before it happens.
Same goes with network neutrality.
Handing over free speech to a few corporations so that they might be able to curb it once it does not fit their needs, is not something to be risked, and it is defnitely not something that you can "later fix".
Its similar to saying "lets allow passing of laws that allow the president to assume dictatorial powers. If something bad happens, we can fix it later".
my pardon, but this is absolute bullshit.