FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations 297
ceswiedler writes "The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality. The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their press release (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines." Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications." McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
And who ... (Score:5, Insightful)
decides what is lawful?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges? Based on .. the law?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges? Based on .. the law?
In theory. In practice many times it never reaches a court/judge.
They may have a guess that you MAY break the law, they don't need a judge decision and they can refuse to carry/throtle your packets. The collateral damage (false positives - innocents) may be considerated acceptable, since almost nobody has the money/knowledge/determination to actually go to court.
As far as I see it nothing changes - someone just wants to be seen as righteous, political crap.
Re: (Score:2)
If your biggest complaint about this law is that the realities of the legal system might allow people (or ISP's) to do something that the law means to forbid... then what's your point? Every law is vulnerable in this regard.
The problem with this regulation isn't the use of the word "lawful". The problem with this regulation is that the government shouldn't be setting network management policies.
Re:And who ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with your supposition. The government is not setting management policy. The government is trying to prevent carriers from making network management policy that could be used to affect public policy.
The "government" gives carriers a lot of leeway by protecting them from liability for the content they carry. Once you let them make traffic management decisions, then you open a can of worms that challenge this policy. It is precisely these policy issues that gives the FCC the right to venture into this kind of regulation.
I am perfectly happy to let Comcast have free reign over network content policy, provided I can sue the shit out of them when they interfere with my content. The same is true for AT&T and other carriers who are driving the opposition to network neutrality.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you high? This story definitely is about the FCC, NOT Canada.
And yes, the GP had an insightful observation. Common carriers get that status because they don't filter things based on content. I.E. AT&T doesn't get charged with child pornography because one of their subscribers sent CP on their network. If carriers choose to use deep packet inspection technology to determine what is in it so that it can decide how speedily it will get routed, maybe AT&T will find themselves more culpable to the co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.
First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the pre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need not have that fear. It will not happen. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. It's simply a lie perpetrated by fearmongering radical right-wing neoconservatives to protect that which they value most: the corporations that give them money to lie on the air.
Now that that's cleared up, do you have any realistic concerns?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As far as I see it nothing changes - someone just wants to be seen as righteous, political crap.
Hear, hear!
It gives another statute that allows for X to sue Y for $1,000,000,000 in collateral damage if they break it. That helps the economy yaaay yaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
*cough*
I mean.. *gag*
Judges? The Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Judges? Based on .. the law?
The problem with relying on judges is that you're more likely to get a ruling like Kelo than some noble defense of the Constitution. You know, Kelo, the one that declared, yes, governments can seize your private property and transfer it to other private citizens for "the public good".
There's a line in the Bible... "Put not your trust in princes"... that I think could easily apply to judges when it comes to your rights and the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?
Re:And who ... (Score:5, Interesting)
More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?
No one, unless they want to go to jail for violating state and federal wiretapping laws. If it's illegal for me to monitor my neighbor's phone calls to determine whether or not he's breaking the law it ought to be illegal for my ISP to monitor my traffic to determine it's legality.
At least in NYS, this may already be the case:
250.05 Eavesdropping: A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
From another section: "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.
Looks like they can't do it in NYS without a court order. So how exactly does my ISP determine whether or not my traffic is "lawful"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC would probably give the carriers provisions that allow them to check the legality of the data on their networks. Try to sue your carrier for breaking a state law and the carrier will just have the "federal law trumps state law" defense.
The FCC can't pass laws, only Congress can do that. And again, how do they check the legality of my data without violating my right to privacy?
Re: (Score:2)
In order to properly enforce these clauses, the carriers would HAVE to be given the ability to do this, and with the current congress enjoying Big Government (both parties included, mind you), do you think that won't happen?
This is dangerous stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they mustn't.
It specifies that they MUST NOT block lawful content, which simply implies that they MAY block unlawful content. But since it's not a lawful act for an ISP to police the content of packets to determine their lawfulness, then the implication means exactly nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on the judge interpreting the law. One could argue that the law dictating that they not block lawful content implies the ability to block unlawful content. Otherwise, what is the point of the law?
This is why poorly worded, vague laws, no matter how well intentioned, are the most harmful of them all.
Re:And who ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS. Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.
But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs? If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS? For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service."
No, I didn't read the proposed law. Yes, this might be answered in there. I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.
Re: (Score:2)
They still have the argument that your server can "harm the network" as described in the summary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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;",
but you are talking about
"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;".
I would tend to view a webserver as a lawful application rather than a device, but I suppose the co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Based on the summary, it's a completely wrong headed approach that leads to endlessly redefining terms. When this debate first started I thought it was a lot more clear: it's okay to prioritize based on protocols but it's not okay to prioritize based on source/destination.
Not sure why they're making it so complex now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still like your version better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?
Yes, because unless you were dealing with Vito Corleone, nobody forced you to accept it. There's a difference between "take this or leave it, we don't care" and "either your brains or your signature will appear on this contract"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
a) Provider A, with policy A
b) Provider B, with policy A
c) go without internet
Around here, the politicians would look at the setup and say, "See? The system is working. You have choice! Competition is driving innovation!"- and in fact have said pretty much exactly that when it comes to our cell phone charges, so why would it be any differen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little. I suppor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And who ... (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T already does it for their mobile broadband cards (According to them 3gb per month is excessive. So 3gb/month over a 2mbit line (It is more, I know) is only 0.45%)...
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought exactly with that phrasing. As it is all of the web hosts who offer the impossible (i.e. limited or extremely high limits for low costs) have a "if you're impacting performance we'll kick you off" condition. Surely "impacting performance" is 'damaging' to the network and its service, therefore all use is effectively damaging it to some degree.
Re:government? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Net neutrality" has nothing to do with freedom of speech. RTFA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But...but... businesses are the devil! We need to control them to protect the children. /sarcasm (If you really couldn't tell.)
I find it funny how the government takes a chunk of our freedom (taxes) to decide which businesses we support (sales) and then blames the business for raising prices to cover expenses (taxes.)
Re:government? (Score:5, Insightful)
"and the banks are in even worse shape than before"
It boggles the mind that you just painted big banks as somehow a "victim" in this and got moderated informative.
The only big banks that are in bad shape are the ones who should have collapsed due to their own stupidity(Citigroup) or which acquired large businesses which should have collapsed due to their own stupidity(B of A buying Countrywide and Merrill Lynch). JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are in better shape than they have ever been. Goldman Sachs was a huge beneficiary of billions of dollars that came at the expense of tax payers, and they got it no strings attached(through AIG bailout or from the Fed).
If you are a big bank the Fed and Treasury have made it incredibly easy to make money. Big banks can borrow money from the fed at zero percent(a.k.a. free money) and are pouring it in to stocks and bonds which are, as a result, in another huge bubble and they are making huge profits. There are a lot of small banks in really bad shape but that is because they drank the koolaid the big banks handed them and no one is throwing them a life line for the most part. The price of this free money and making Goldman Sachs rich, they are destroying the dollar and wiping out the savings of everyone who is holding dollars instead of riding the new bubble on the stock market.
The last couple of years of rampant greed on Wall Street probably should have clued you in there is a problem with Libertarianism. You can certainly argue a factor in the recent collapse was due to government intervention but Wall Street, has for nearly 30 years, managed to completely eviscerate any regulation of their organized crime syndicate and its pretty obvious if you actually let Wall Street function with no oversight they would devour the world. The are a legal organized crime syndicate at this point, load sharking and usury being their specialty.
The only positive about implementing Libertarianism lately is you would have let AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GM, Chrysler, GE etc. end in Chapter 11. It would have have ended in the Greatest Depression ever seen but if you are going to have free market Capitalism either you let stupid companies fail or you eliminate moral hazard and without moral hazard Capitalism ends up completely broken which is where we sit today (regulating exec pay is a feeble attempt to restore moral hazard, doomed to fail).
Bottom line the problem isn't government regulating pay at failed companies, its that the government didn't let them end in Chapter 11.
Re:government? (Score:4, Insightful)
The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality" I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC neutrality states that they can however control/enforce what is being transmitted. It's basically like the FCC fining television stations for cursing or broadcasting porn... now they are trying to get the same ability over the Internet by giving them control and calling it network neutrality. They veil it by telling the consumers that they are trying to protect their right to download Grandpa's retirement party video, but also protecting them from "evil" things (that they decide.) [ie: unlimited
Ronald Reagan (Score:2)
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan
McCain (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual McCain has no clue what he's going on about, surprise, surprise.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:McCain (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh hey, stupid? The telcos barely invest in infrastructure as it is, and they've grifted over 200 billion from us in public money and rate hikes for upgrades they never even planned to deliver. Those 'little companies', which include content providers, add value to the infrastructure, which is kind of the point. (But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably way over your head.) Competition between ISPs would encourage them to actually invest some of the obscene goddamn mountains of money they've been siphoning off of us into their networks, which is something that we honestly don't have now. They have no incentive to innovate! They have no incentive to even try, and nothing to prevent them from hike-hike-hiking those rates without delivering anything better in return for it. (Just look at Comcast, sweet Jesus.) Also, look at how much it costs to place a landline international call here versus, uh, anywhere else in the industrialized world. We're so far behind the curve it's not even funny.
I'll keep my unintended consequences. Thanks to that free market bullshit you're smoking, I'm already used to it!
Innovation? (Score:3, Informative)
I used to see a heck of a lot more of that when there were easily a dozen or more local ISPs offering Internet access in my area. Once the telcos were allowed to cut them out of the picture, innovation has become non-existent.
What Infrastructure Investments? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, those "large companies" can (and did) cut their infrastructure investments... but those investments were paid by public money.
You are not legally allowed to dig your own cables -- Easements were given by the government to the incumbents.
So, tell me again how the government ISN'T involved?
Personally, I don't like to bail on something I have already paid for, but I don't need the Internet "24/7" that much. I can easily deal with "web by mail" and UUCP, or even data transfer via "truck of tapes" again. Strangely enough, if hackers go that route, AND we control the "good stuff" -- that is, the good pirated music/videos and technical information, the "Internet" will go down that path instead.
Which puts the attempted controls by the "other" cartel at risk. Basically, the content cartel wants a centralized Internet, if there is an Internet at all. The delivery cartel wants to put road-blocks into that centralized Internet, to maximize their profits. The hackers are willing to Balkanize the Internet, screwing both of the cartels.
The "end-users" really want the product the hackers produce.
You tell me how this plays out...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the internet has been fine so far does not mean that it will be fine in the future... As the internet provides more and better competition to the traditiona
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet
Sillyness, Dave. That's like saying the FAA has no authority to regulate airplanes, only airports.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question here is the Internet "interstate or international communications"?
I'd say the answer to that is a resounding yes.
My one fear in all of this is they decide to start trying to regulate pr0n on the nets.
are you stupid ? (Score:3, Informative)
the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is'. they want to CHANGE it, so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks. this is why you need net neutrality rules. net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways -> no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source, not the type and amount.
get a fucking brain and realize what's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.
http://tech.sl [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I thought it was awesome watching him go from a "maverick" to a completely bought & sold man as the GOP started grooming him for his runs at the Presidency.
Re:McCain (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, I'm quite sure the $216,938 from AT&T for his 2010 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on this issue.
source [opensecrets.org]
Re:McCain (Score:4, Informative)
So? You need to drill down and see who AT&T donated money, too.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076 [opensecrets.org]
You'll be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Where exactly did I say that other politicians across the political spectrum weren't also on the take?
A "tu quoque" argument doesn't make any sense here. Just because Harry Reid (D-NV) is also getting bribed by AT&T doesn't mean that John McCain's (R-AZ) positions aren't based in large part on AT&T's corporate sponsorship of his campaigns.
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
Government cannot do ANYTHING of any significance without this kind of corruption. That is the single best reason to keep government out of it.
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
Government cannot do ANYTHING of any significance without this kind of corruption. That is the single best reason to keep government out of it.
Not necessarily: it's possible under some circumstances the corruption involved in a government program is less than the corruption involved in a private-sector program.
my dear idiot friend, (Score:2)
fucking up of internet by american companies because they want to make it into a cable internet would incur SO much bigger a backlash from international economic community and get the internet out of usa's control and home ground SO fast that dumping of the dollar would be the least of your concerns.
Drudge (Score:5, Interesting)
This article was linked on the Drudge Report as "Julius [Caeser, implied] wants to regulate the internet."
I consider it, rather, a common carrier issue, akin to the situation we had with the railways 100 years ago - they were able to leverage their power over transit into other areas. You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers). While all the networks are crying out that its a solution in need of a problem, the whole issue was raised because the telco's all started talking excitedly about how they could do all sorts of shady things, like double-dipping for bandwidth charges, that network neutrality would stop.
I'm a libertarian, and I support net neutrality, since oligopolies are market failures (see for example the price of cell phones in America over time). The actual implementation? Seems to actually have too many loopholes to me. They can, for example, tier service in order to deal with "net congestion". Hah.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm libertarian leaning, and after much internal struggle, I also concluded that I support the "concept" of network neutrality.
It's extremely unfortunate that the only institution in the U.S. with enough power to enforce something like that is the Federal Government. With that in mind, I do not trust any "implementation" of network neutrality that the D.C. crowd will come up with. They may give a piece of legislation a nice label, but you can be sure that in the end, the big money special interests will g
Re: (Score:2)
I commented on this before. [slashdot.org]
Basically, I'm more frightened by the current administration's plans for "what to do about the Internet" than I am the ISP's plans. Especially when you start finding "dangerous speech" on the Internet, and classifying certain groups as "hate groups" just because you disagree with them. For instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now decided that the Oath Keepers organization [oathkeepers.org] is a is a hate group. [splcenter.org] What's to prevent the FCC from declaring that "hate speech" is not "lega
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, if you are an anarcho-capitalist there is no such thing as a market failure. Libertarians that believe in *some* government can recognize that lack of competition is a market failure. Certain industries that have a large barrier to entry or are inelastic are prime targets for monopolistic abuse. Industries such as water, power, roads networks etc. You know, the commons.
Adam Smith said that for an economy of "perfect liberty" you must have competition and the laws of supply and demand. Thomas Jefferson t
Re: (Score:2)
There really is. There's no way for the market to support paying someone with a noisy baby to leave a theater, even though said transaction is to everyone's benefit... non-governmental market failure. Absent regulation, there would be no Linux, because Intel and AMD would only sell chips that could only run MS products (or no MS products would run).
Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I love this part.
"McCain protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules. The wireless industry has "exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation," McCain said in the statement."
Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years.
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
With incredibly stiff government regulation.. The companies screamed and moaned about E911, but now, they have apps that take advantage of knowing where you are. (and tout a cell as a safety device when traveling).
They screamed about number portability. yet they now all encourage you to port your number to them. (Would the iphone have been as successfull if everyone had to ditch their old numbers?)
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. we should ignore companies when they are kicking & screaming.
Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
a "government takeover" of the Internet. (Score:2)
Yeah. Next thing you know the feds will be trying to take over medicare.
Openoffice shows it flawlessly (Score:2)
Even though .doc format remains an abysmally poor choice for a document produced by a government agency for public distribution, the days when non-Windows users would be inconvenienced by that are long gone.
We need document neutrality first (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need document neutrality first (Score:4, Informative)
It's not ODF, but the FCC does release all documents in pdf and plain text. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf [fcc.gov] or http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.txt [fcc.gov]
"Lawful uses" (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause. That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.
I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.
Something about this bugs me (Score:2, Insightful)
The proposed rules only apply to "lawful content", "lawful applications", "lawful services", and "lawful devices". I'm not sure what I think about this. By way of analogy, do we have laws for our public highway system that limits our use of the road based on what content we carry in our vehicles? Is our use of the roadway illegal if we intend to use something we're carrying for an evil purpose or application? I can see where my vehicle (device) might be unlawfully configured (over the maximum weight lim
Re: (Score:2)
...and only the Police with reasonable suspicion can stop and search your vehicle ... they cannot ask the highways agency to blanket search every vehicle for them ..Try doing the same on the phone ... the police need a court order for a wiretap to find that you are using the telephone system to do illegal activities, it is illegal for the phone company to tap your line with a court order ...
"lawful applications", "lawful services" and also (Score:2)
"lawful applications", "lawful services" and also be used for unlawful things.
So he wants to prevent.... (Score:2)
the "government takeover" of the Internet (by the way Internet is an entity larger than USA and its government), by government takeover of the FCC, and indirectly government takeover of the Internet by disallowing anyone to prevent any illegal practices that might ensue.
You could pilot the Titanic through that loophole (Score:2)
"Allowed to throttle content that is not legal". That loophole is big enough to pilot the Titanic through. That could easily be interpreted to block everything from p2p traffic to VOIP. This loophole would flat kill P2P in entirety and severely hurt VOIP and all with the ISP's having governments blessings. Many things are legal in one country and not in another.
This loophole needs removed in entirety for all such rules, I can guarantee you that any type of traffic you can think of is illegal, somewhere (Dut
Re: (Score:2)
I see the FCC managers follows the money too... (Score:2)
We're not supposed to drop 'legal' connections but we still don't want the high traffic users. We'll filter all high traffic connections. Configure the sandvine filters to increase latency 50% on P2P connections and website x. When the high traffic users complain say 'we're entitled to filter to remove 'illegal' connections. When they cry 'net neutrality' politely inform them that we comply with the rules because we aren't 'preventing users from sending or receiv
Oh, brother (Score:2)
McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Somebody wake up grandpa.
Mr. McCain? (Score:2, Troll)
McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Mr. McCain, since the government pretty much invented the internet [wikipedia.org], please feel free to step in occasionally to make sure capitalism doesn't drive it back into the ground.
Are We There Yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was one of those quintessential brats in the back seat of my parent's car mindlessly chanting the eternal question, "Are we there yet?". When addressing questions that incorporate government oversight of national infrastructures that are run by near monopolies there are no destination solutions. There are tentative, context sensitive solutions. The answer isn't unregulated free enterprise, nor is it heavy handed government control. IMHO the answer is the solution offered by mature democracies that have in place the institutions and laws that permit tentative solutions to be put in place then publicly monitored and honed.
What works in our modern, mature democracies are the checks and balances, supplemented by free speech, and, government and business oversight, that allow us to find a workable middle ground. I'm a liberal but I'm always glad for the common sense conservatives who try to limit government interference. Solving social problems by way of democratic institutions is a messy, contentious affair but, I think, modern history has amply demonstrated that the current crop of mature democracies are the best way to go and it's the somewhat efficient functioning of our institutions that allow us succeed more so than does any other form of government. We succeed because we have in place institutions that allow for open debate and venues to address things when they go wrong. We aren't there yet, but then we aren't ever gonna be so we might as well enjoy the ride given that we've got the best vehicle on the road.
just my loose change in a contentious debate
Nice wording (Score:2)
"'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.'"So, anything with a network card must be switched off, then? Malware, poor configuration, malicious intent all turn a connected device into a DoS device.
Net Neutrality.. or Common Carrier status.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...
If they want to keep the protections that common carrier status affords them, then they must support net neutrality and remain essentially a dumb pipe. They used public land and massive tax incentives and subsidies to deploy the initial infrastructure (with the exception of FIOS, which I believe Verizon is eating the total cost, but still using public land, and in some cases tax breaks).
Or, if they do not want to implement neutrality in anyway, and they want to double dip on charging for bandwidth, discriminate on the types of traffic so that their own services do not have to compete etc, strip them of their protections, let every content company, every person who has been libeled, every politician who wants to shut down $x type of service/product/content and what not sue the telcos and ISPs into oblivion.
Seriously, the only reason telcos have protections is because they were just the intermediary carrying traffic between end points, and could not be held liable for what those entities did. But if they want to start manipulating the types of traffic and data, then they should be held liable for whatever that data contains.
For the record, I agree with the principles, I may not neccesarily agree with how the gov will implement them. Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.
How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants. Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.
Who are these consumers? I want to see one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Robert Mcdowell:
"Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said. "Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well."
I wish I could interview politicians, "You just made that shit up didn't you?"
FUCK. MC. CAIN. (Score:2)
just what do you expect from the republicans. EVERY kind of move they made to control people's lives are disguised as 'for freedom'.
why the fuck arent highways being sold to whomever bids the highest for them, and they are let to discriminate against any and whomever they like and charge them whatever they like, for 'free market' and freedom ? why the fuck all the conservatives stop dead, when asked why arent we doing this ? wouldnt private companies run roads better ? isnt it scuttling investment to not al
This is how far 'let private sector be' went : (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts [thedailyshow.com]
it has come to this point. because, you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.
net neutrality is no different. its the freedom of internet being legalized. yet, same bastards oppose it with the same old barking.
The battle is lost (Score:2)
With comments like these:
http://blog.openinternet.gov/?p=1&cpage=128 [openinternet.gov]
I think it's game over for net neutrality in the USA.
Camels Nose in the Tent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case you'd assumed that a press release from a communications agency on the subject of the Internet would be a web page?
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But didn't you sign the 1 year contract along with the agreement saying they could change the terms whenever they wanted? So, wouldn't that have been YOUR mistake... for being an ill-informed broadband consumer without any recourse when the provider changed the terms beyond your liking?
BUT WAIT... the government is here to protect you from your own stupid mistakes. YAY the govenrment!
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody hasn't been paying attention. The FCC is already in charge of regulating communications. They've had guidelines for Net Neutrality since 2005. Now they are just going to take those existing guidelines & make them laws so that they can fine companies for not following them. None of this would have happened if said ISPs weren't getting hard-ons over trying to screw-over their customers both big (Google) & small (me & you).
Re: (Score:2)
The 2005 guidelines are great and should be kept and maybe modified(4 years is a long time for the Internet), but they should be kept as a trip wire and if companies do start disregrading them then FCC or Congress should clamp down.
Re: (Score:2)
You're suggesting we wait until it becomes a big problem and only at that point attempt to pass laws to stop it?
No, I'm sorry, the writing is already on the wall. Comcast started it here in the US. At least they started the "oh shit, look what is coming" fear.
Burying our heads in the sand now and just hoping it doesn't become a problem isn't the right answer here. And guidelines aren't enough to stop multi-billion dollar companies from making decisions that screw their customers.
Just look at how cable TV
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of examples, you just choose to ignore them. The most blatant in recent years in the US was Comcast, who blocked P2P traffic across its network. They only backed down because the FCC threatened to consider additional regulation over the matter, which it has now chosen to do anyway.
And I suppose you've been deaf to the comments of nearly all major telecoms about how Google and other web sites are getting a "free ride?" On numerous occasions they've said they would like to charge web sites
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the event that companies do start charging major sites to carry the traffic then yes it should be passed. Until then they are passing laws that will give more examples of the government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer.
I want more competition in the marketplace, I want a ISP(or series of ISP) th
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the event that companies do start charging major sites to carry the traffic then yes it should be passed. Until then they are passing laws that will give more examples of the government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer.
"Leave things alone until the free market fucks it up" is not a good way to pursue public policy.
Example: Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention your bald assertions that this will lead to "government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer" make no sense at all. If you think that your net connection being subject to the whims of a corporation, with no recourse, isn't a problem, I can't help you to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just silly. Just cause your Google fingers are broke, doesn't mean there haven't been many examples of exactly what NN laws are going to hopefully prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just step back, take a deep breath, and think about this for a second. Now repeat after me:
"The telecoms do no operate in a free market"
Phone and cable companies are basically giant collections of government granted local monopolies. I live in a large urban area that has about a million people within a 20 minute drive from my house, and yet I only have two crappy options for broadband. My situation is not unique.
These companies have guaranteed markets, and basically guaranteed profit. In exchange for
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?
All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.
Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?
The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use. If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so. But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case. That is why we need net neutrality regulations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fictitious far right Republican response: Hell no, of course that's not right! That's Obama propaganda marketing! More evidence of him trying to destroy America from within the white house to turn us into a socialist state where the government decides how much money ev
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused.
It's already _not_ a free market, it is entirely monopolistic, and built with _public_ funds to boot. Also, it's way more expensive than it should be with intentionally substandard connection speeds.
I'm not defending this particular tact by the FCC, just saying your -wait a minute have I just been trolled?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)