No Net Neutrality thread?

[Spurminator]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...iref=allsearch

Internet regulation proposal sets off political firestorm

By: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) - The Obama administration is facing a fresh round of heat from Republicans Tuesday amid the passage of a Federal Communications Commission proposal that aims to impart new regulations on internet providers.

The so-called "net neutrality" rules, proposed by the Obama administration, is the federal government's most high-profile move yet in connection with a debate nearly as old as the modern-day Internet itself. The proposed rules would require high-speed providers to treat all types of Web content equally, instead of allowing providers to favor some types of websites or apps at the expense of others.

While some Democrats say the proposal doesn't go far enough in leveling the Internet playing field, Republican critics – including the two on the five-panel FCC commission - say it is the latest example of government overreach into a place it has no business to be.

"Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs," wrote Robert McDowell, a Republican member of the FCC, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Meredith Atwell Baker, the second Republican member of the FCC, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the Democrat-dominated panel is "intervening to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to."

"Preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet is non-negotiable; it is a bedrock principle shared by all in the Internet economy. No government action is necessary to preserve it," wrote Atwell Baker.

The same sentiment was echoed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday:

"Today the Obama administration, which has already nationalized health care, the auto industry, insurance companies, banks and student loans, will move forward with what could be the first step in controlling how Americans use the internet by establishing federal regulations on its use," he said in a speech on the Senate Flor. "This would harm investment, stifle innovation and lead to job losses. That's why I along with several of my colleagues have urged the FCC chairman to abandon this flawed approach."

Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, filed an amendment last week in an effort to halt implementation of the new provisions. Twenty-nine Republican senators also wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, last week to register their opposition to the proposal and urge him to abandon it.

But Some Republicans have gone even further in their criticisms, saying it cons utes an effort on behalf of the Obama administration to censor the Internet.

"Let's face it, what's the Obama administration doing? They're advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet," GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann said earlier this year. "This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them."

"This could be the very worst "Merry Christmas" present that you have ever received… Internet freedoms may VANISH!" wrote the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative group, in an e-mail to supporters.

"We've got to minimize the damage done by the FCC this month," added RedState.org blogger Neil Stevens earlier this month. "We need a light, light, light touch if we have to have regulation at all."

But in a clear illustration of just how divisive the issue has become, Democratic Sen. Al Franken is slamming the proposal as too lenient to broadband providers.

"Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman [Julius] Genachowski has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it," Franken wrote on The Huffington Post. "No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that his agency is supposed to regulate."

Michael Copps, a Democrat member of the commission, said in a written statement that he won't block the plan after weeks of trying to make it tougher.

"The item we will vote on tomorrow is not the one I would have crafted," Copps said. "But I believe we have been able to make the current iteration better than what was originally circulated.

– CNN.com's Doug Gross contributed to this report

[fyatuk]

After seeing some numbers regarding bandwidth usage for downloading/streaming video and expected growth rates of both usage and bandwidth, I have to say treating all content the same is economically a bad idea.

Just like preventing insurance companies from rating freely is going to result in an across the board increase of premiums, preventing ISPs from charging freely is going to result in higher bandwidth charges across the board, or severe bandwidth limitations on users.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge differently depending on source (aka favor Blockbuster over Netflix, Google over Yahoo, etc), but they should be able to rate for content. Of course, that could just as easily be done by a bandwidth charge instead of flat fee, which is probably where the ISPs will head.

[Spurminator]

After seeing some numbers regarding bandwidth usage for downloading/streaming video and expected growth rates of both usage and bandwidth, I have to say treating all content the same is economically a bad idea.

Just like preventing insurance companies from rating freely is going to result in an across the board increase of premiums, preventing ISPs from charging freely is going to result in higher bandwidth charges across the board, or severe bandwidth limitations on users.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge differently depending on source (aka favor Blockbuster over Netflix, Google over Yahoo, etc), but they should be able to rate for content. Of course, that could just as easily be done by a bandwidth charge instead of flat fee, which is probably where the ISPs will head.

When I contrast this well-reasoned and still concise perspective on the issue with Mic e Bachmann's "censorship of the Internet" argument in the article above, it makes me really sad for this country.

[baseline bum]

Does Mic e Bachman ever have anything to say that makes sense in this universe and not just her right-wing dystopia?

[boutons_deux]

I'm sure this blatantly dishonest "net neutrality" lie is the thin end of the wedge towards increasing prioritizing/commercializing Internet traffic, just like the SocSec tax holiday is the beginning of the end of SocSec.

The biggest corps will be able to afford selling bandwidth to their sites, while smaller and newcomer businesses will be shut out.

I'm also sure this is not for corps to stop losing money, but how corps can to make more, new money.

eg, which network operators are losing money because Netflix streaming moving take 20% of the entire bandwidth in the evenings?

Information is free, but information delivery, as cheap as it is over networks, is not free because of the huge volumes. And are streaming movies really "information"?

While the Repugs are trying to kill USF (which their red-state bubbas need for rural networking), there is an argument that USF expansion, like a tax on every Internet subscriber bill (just like telephone has been for decades) goes to the network builders/operators to subsidize the operations.

I have no doubt the corporations will up Internet like they up everything else as long as they increase their profits. They'll destroy anything to make profits. And nobody can stop them.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I have been trying to read and grasp at both sides of the debate. So far it looks like no matter the outcome us normal folks will end up getting screwed. Also a lot of funny right wing paranoia. Net neutrality in theory sounds great but this billread does not.

[Wild Cobra]

After seeing some numbers regarding bandwidth usage for downloading/streaming video and expected growth rates of both usage and bandwidth, I have to say treating all content the same is economically a bad idea.

No . I understand the arguments about the fear Comcast, et al. will pick and choose, but the real issue is the higher bandwidth people selling a product want to crowd out everyone else. The fear than Comcast will make products like Netflicks on Demand unusable is ridiculous. There is only so much bandwidth, and not everyone can be using such high bandwidths at the same time without problems.

They shouldn't be allowed to charge differently depending on source (aka favor Blockbuster over Netflix, Google over Yahoo, etc), but they should be able to rate for content. Of course, that could just as easily be done by a bandwidth charge instead of flat fee, which is probably where the ISPs will head.

I agree if someone wants to pay for a guaranteed download speed, the provider should be able to charge a premium for it.

Does someone really think that a ISP blocks content of others?

Where's the proof? I've only heard talk of it. Never seen proof of it.

[Wild Cobra]

I have been trying to read and grasp at both sides of the debate. So far it looks like no matter the outcome us normal folks will end up getting screwed. Also a lot of funny right wing paranoia. Net neutrality in theory sounds great but this billread does not.

Unless the internet infrastructure can keep up with our ever increasing need for speed, our services will be disrupted, no matter what policies are put in place.

[ElNono]

It's bull . The US doesn't have a bad broadband infrastructure. Verizon just laid a lot of FTH, but what they charge is tenfold for the speeds they provide compared to other less developed nations with smaller markets. Thus, you end up with very poor broadband adoption.

Again, the question here is if you want to put the country above a few companies' interests. When you start charging bull fees you raise the barrier of entry and simply make the US less compe ive against the rest of the world.

Eventually, Corps will win this though. It's just too much money in play for them not to buy up the legislation.

[ElNono]

Unless the internet infrastructure can keep up with our ever increasing need for speed, our services will be disrupted, no matter what policies are put in place.

Spoken like somebody that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Keep it up

We already pay for the speed we want. We also already paid for the infrastructure upgrade. This has nothing to do with that. It's about double dipping on both sides of the connection. It's very much like cell phone usage. The US is one of the few countries where both ends pay for cellphone minutes, and still have among the highest rates in cell telephony.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The problem I'm seeing is that there are corporations on both sides of the debate

meaning no matter what happens, us normal folks get ed anyways

[MannyIsGod]

It's bull . The US doesn't have a bad broadband infrastructure. Verizon just laid a lot of FTH, but what they charge is tenfold for the speeds they provide compared to other less developed nations with smaller markets. Thus, you end up with very poor broadband adoption.

Again, the question here is if you want to put the country above a few companies' interests. When you start charging bull fees you raise the barrier of entry and simply make the US less compe ive against the rest of the world.

Eventually, Corps will win this though. It's just too much money in play for them not to buy up the legislation.

It ty when you look at the speeds we get compared to the speeds in all of Europe and Korea/Japan. Sure, we don't have caps for the most part but thats because we're capped by speed.

[ElNono]

It ty when you look at the speeds we get compared to the speeds in all of Europe and Korea/Japan. Sure, we don't have caps for the most part but thats because we're capped by speed.

We have caps (at least most cable co. do), and we also have ty pricing. It's asinine that the same internet service costs $40 if bundled with TV service and Phone service on a 2 year contract, but $65 if sold standalone. There's no actual value difference from a provider standpoint that justifies the 50% hike in price. There's no infrastructure impediment either.

[ElNono]

The problem I'm seeing is that there are corporations on both sides of the debate

meaning no matter what happens, us normal folks get ed anyways

Completely agree. This will end in some backroom deal and we'll be ed either way. Eventually we'll have to pay through the nose for the 'cap free', 'ad free' experience. Which is what we're getting now at a fraction of the cost.

[ElNono]

I mean, if you REALLY want to lower the bandwidth load on the current infrastructure, ban ing ads. Nobody wants them and they're everywhere wasting people's time and bandwidth.

[Wild Cobra]

It's bull . The US doesn't have a bad broadband infrastructure. Verizon just laid a lot of FTH, but what they charge is tenfold for the speeds they provide compared to other less developed nations with smaller markets. Thus, you end up with very poor broadband adoption.

Again, the question here is if you want to put the country above a few companies' interests. When you start charging bull fees you raise the barrier of entry and simply make the US less compe ive against the rest of the world.

Eventually, Corps will win this though. It's just too much money in play for them not to buy up the legislation.

fascist.

[Wild Cobra]

Spoken like somebody that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Keep it up

We already pay for the speed we want. We also already paid for the infrastructure upgrade. This has nothing to do with that. It's about double dipping on both sides of the connection. It's very much like cell phone usage. The US is one of the few countries where both ends pay for cellphone minutes, and still have among the highest rates in cell telephony.

Yet you have no proof.

[Wild Cobra]

We have caps (at least most cable co. do), and we also have ty pricing. It's asinine that the same internet service costs $40 if bundled with TV service and Phone service on a 2 year contract, but $65 if sold standalone. There's no actual value difference from a provider standpoint that justifies the 50% hike in price. There's no infrastructure impediment either.

There are still bottlenecks.

I can get 20+ megabit all day long on downloads from Comcast. However, once I need to access outside their local network, I am tied with hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing, over a limited bandwidth, there is conflict. I sometimes have to wait a long time for Spurstalk. When our combined access exceeds the max speed, s going to get dropped. Normal data packages just get slower, but the complaint that the speed isn't fast enough for something like Blockbuster on Demand, is unreasonable. You simply cannot expect priority to such services, under the

Look...

I ing hate Comcast. However, i will not allow the lies to go forward just because I hate them. I agree their pricing, service, etc. is ed up. Still, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Parker2112]

Its not about bandwidth, its about tightening the noose.

Who was claiming the Patriot Act was a bad idea after Sept 11th?

But unfortunately hindsight is too slow to keep up in this case.

[ElNono]

fascist.

WC attacking the messenger when he can't back up his bull ... par for the course, tbh.

Yet you have no proof.

Proof of what dummy? That you're talking out of your ass?

There are still bottlenecks.

I can get 20+ megabit all day long on downloads from Comcast. However, once I need to access outside their local network, I am tied with hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing, over a limited bandwidth, there is conflict. I sometimes have to wait a long time for Spurstalk. When our combined access exceeds the max speed, s going to get dropped. Normal data packages just get slower, but the complaint that the speed isn't fast enough for something like Blockbuster on Demand, is unreasonable. You simply cannot expect priority to such services, under the

Complete and utter bull , and again complete lack of understanding of the technology involved. Cable Co has been laying out fiber also to their local substations. The entire traffic allocation is nothing like it used to be. Nowadays with Docsis 3.0 and switched cable broadcast, they freed even more bandwidth.

Again, this has nothing to do with access between you and the Comcast backbone. Nothing. Zero. Nada. You are already paying for a speed limit and that's what you get.

Look...

I ing hate Comcast. However, i will not allow the lies to go forward just because I hate them. I agree their pricing, service, etc. is ed up. Still, two wrongs don't make a right.

Uh? What's that even supposed to mean?

Is that your 'proof'? Your personal experience with Comcast?

Comcast throttles you because they're trying to nickle and dime you to death using whatever old hubs they might still have, so you pay both for the upgrade and also their Wall Street goal for the quarter. You'll never see them losing money even though thy've been upgrading their networks for years now. Heck, probably a good chunk of the infrastructure upgrade money is government subsidized (was just reading about that a couple weeks ago).


And folks, this is the basic problem with this topic. Completely uninformed people building opinion on the sounbite of the day, or what cable looked like in the 90's and the struggles they had to go through growing up. It's a fiber world out there, and there's even plenty of dark fiber to go around.

[ElNono]

And BTW, 9 out of 10 times, 'Spurstalk taking a while to load' has to do with DNS lookups (simply switch to a faster DNS, such as google's), or Spurstalk being down or under a hack attempt.
Spurstalk is a relatively slow traffic site, and to top it all off, a lot of the heavy content is cached by your browser. Really poor example to try to point out network infrastructure limitations.

[Parker2112]

The FCC’s Grand Plan to Control Your Internet, TV, and Phone?
From Kelly William Cobb on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:19 PM

This Thursday, the FCC opens up comments on its proposal regulate the Internet. While no one is quite sure all that it will contain, Scott Cleland (a long-time telecom policy expert and insider) has pieced together recent FCC filings from Google to outline how Net Neutrality regulations could be part of a grand plan to control how virtually all media enters your home. Here's a brief summary:
Under the guise of “Net Neutrality” and “consumer protection” the FCC would begin regulating Internet access for the first time under a completely new regulatory scheme (even though they lack the authority to create it). Meanwhile, the FCC would push regulations – cloaked in the heart-warming language of compe ion and innovation – mandating that your cable box (known as a set-top box) become a “broadband gateway device” controlling access to your Internet, TV, and phone. The FCC has already started looking at set-top box regulations in their National Broadband Plan.
The FCC would then begin setting rates for the total cost of all three services. Chairman Genachowski said he does not intend to set prices for Internet access. However, the legal maneuvering is so tenuous and the desire from left-wing groups so strong that a mere promise to “forbear” from rate setting is certainly no guarantee. On top of this, it would open the door for the FCC to begin monitoring or censoring content on the Internet (in addition to your TV), something Free Press and other progressives, as well as the White House regulatory czar advocate. The Songwriters Guild of America has a great op-ed on why government censorship is entirely possible if the Internet becomes regulated.
This plan outlines a dark hypothetical world that would effectively destroy any future compe ion for services and turn our nation’s networks into “dumb pipes” under government centralized control. Everyone will buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim.
Worst of all, this extreme case of political favoritism for Google’s business model (which is developing set-top boxes and carrying all content to users for "free") is not out of the realm of possibility. Both Google and the socialist organization Free Press have long pushed for such regulations and both are arguably the closest groups to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. They are also strong supporters of President Obama who are calling for their payoff. The former head of Google’s policy shop is now Chief Technology Officer at the White House and Free Press’s former press director is the FCC’s spokesperson.
There are a lot of hurdles for the FCC should they choose this horrendously anti-free market route to take over the nation’s Internet networks and control the flow of media. Already facing severe bipartisan opposition from Congress and the court, the FCC would certainly invite another legal challenge. But if it works, Internet, phone, and TV service will simply become Google Chrome, Android/Google-Voice, and Google TV.

Read more: http://atr.org/fccs-grand-plan-contr...#ixzz18p9ZkOjm

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone who thinks what you get from Comcast is due to their bandwidth needs to play a bit with an uncapped cable modem.

[Winehole23]

Net neutrality in theory sounds great but this billread does not.

It is a point of guile to label things opposite. A politically appealing label hides deception well.

To have a "net neutrality reg" that upholds the right of internet providers to make invidious distinctions as to priority -- for example, possibly. Depending on how the courts hash it out.

Or maybe not. Comcast seems quite sanguine about Tuesday's decision.
"While we look forward to reviewing the final order, the rules as described generally appear intended to strike a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace for certainty and everyone's desire that Internet openness be preserved," Comcast Vice President David Cohen declared.

"Most importantly, this approach removes the cloud of le II regulation that would unquestionably have harmed innovation and investment in the Internet and broadband infrastructure."
Reasonable and timely

Rather than le II common carrier regulations, much of the Order's legal framework is based on Section 706 of the Communications Act, which requires the FCC to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans."

The question of whether this and various other sections of the Act that the FCC is invoking will survive court scrutiny is an interesting one, but there are other potential legal bugbears ahead. The ISPs also insist that they've got the First Amendment right to cut priority access deals with content providers.

"The First Amendment protects the right not just to decide what to say, but how to say it," former National Cable and Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow declared last year. "Does the First Amendment really allow the government to prohibit a content or applications provider from paying to acquire the means to distribute its content in the form or manner it wishes?"

How will all this play itself out? It depends on how the FCC enforces this advisory, and who sues the government in response.

"We have a legal basis for the rules we adopted today that is very strong—that gives us the authority we need," Genachowski told reporters in a press conference held after Tuesday's Open Commission meeting. "And I am confident it will in court."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...rnet-rules.ars

Commissioner Genachowski relies heavily on the stoutness of existing FCC regs. I guess we'll see if they old up in court.

[senorglory]

Does someone really think that a ISP blocks content of others?

Where's the proof?

Comcast Blocks BitTorrent Traffic 24 Hours a Day

http://gizmodo.com/390947/comcast-bl...24-hours-a-day