Slashdot Mirror

I suggest we wait until they actually do something and then act.

In the past, Torrent traffic DID cause performance problems on DOCSIS networks
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/...
http://bennett.com/2007/11/doc...

On a side note, ISPs can and do change the egress path for traffic leaving their network to address latency, peer link imbalances, etc.
There's no good reasons to stop them from doing this.

How do you feel about business internet connections getting better SLA and prioritization over residential customers on the same ISP network?

There are more than 4,000 competitive high speed wireless ISPs in the US alone. See http://bennett.com/blog/2009/02/thought-you-had-no-alternatives-for-broadband/ (which was Slashdotted last week, by the way).

Comcast in fact has claimed that the FCC in fact does not have authority to regulate the Internet. See its filing with the FCC regarding this, and its followup here.

The recent decision in CBS v. FCC (the "wardrobe malfunction" case) may also bear on this decision. The court struck down the FCC's ruling against CBS, saying that the FCC couldn't just make up the rules as it went along! Normally, the FCC promulgates rules by posting a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," takes comments, and only then creates rules (which are set out in writing before anyone can be cited for a violation).

But in this case, the FCC published only a vague and explicitly nonbinding "policy statement," on which the public had no chance to comment at all. And it's now trying to say, "Fooled ya! You believed us when we said that it was nonbinding, but we're retroactively turning it into a set of hard and fast rules so that we can take a swipe at Comcast. Why? Because we want to, that's why."

Worse still, that policy statement had several serious problems. For example, it required that Internet users be allowed to run the "application of their choice." While politicians may not graspthe full implications of this, the readers of Slashdot, as computer geeks, know how dangerous this could be. An "application" (a computer program which is not an operating system) encodes and embodies behavior â" any behavior at all that the author wants. And anyone can write one. So, insisting that an ISP allow a user to run any application means that anyone can program his or her computer to behave any way at all â" no matter how destructively â" on the network, and the ISP is not allowed to intervene. In short, such a requirement means that no network provider can have an enforceable Acceptable Use Policy or Terms of Service. Port scanning? The ISP has to allow it, even if it's a prelude to an attack, because it's not illegal. Better turn off all of the intrusion detection systems which detect and block port scans! Exploits? If they haven't been declared to be outright illegal, they are "applications" and so you must not block them. Anyone who engages in destructive behavior, hogs bandwidth, or even takes down the network with an intentionally or unintentionally destructive program could just say, "I was running an application⦠and I have the right to run any application I want, so you canâ(TM)t stop me."

Great work, FCC.

Now, imagine yourself as the administrator of a school network, a public hotspot, an ISP, or any other network which provides service to the public. Someone is doing something disruptive. Your users are complaining; quality of service has deteriorated. But if you act, and especially if you focus on the destructive behavior by detecting the rogue application and attempting to block it and not others (so that legitimate traffic can still get through), you would be subject to FCC fines and penalties.

The above conundrum is but one example of why any proposed rules or regulations pertaining to the Internet should be presented to the public for comment as part of a formal rulemaking process. The FCC is not only regulating what Congress, in its own policy statement, said should not be regulated. (If the FCC makes a policy statement, and Congress makes one, the one made by Congress obviously trumps the FCC's.) The Congressional policy is laid out at 47 USC 230(b), and it says:

It is the policy of the United Statesâ"

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet an

"Beware! Ahead lies the castle of the evil Sag Gosht!"