Will the FCC Regulate the Net?

Lam1969 writes "Computerworld's Robert Mitchell wonders if the FCC could one day have regulatory power over the Internet. The causes? As telephone calls are increasingly delivered as an IP service, and traditional telephony fades away, traditional telephone companies are demanding a level regulatory regimen for all service providers. From the article: "Assuming that the FCC buys arguments such as this, we could see a new regulatory focus on the Internet and a decline in the hands-off attitude shown in the past. From the regulators' viewpoint, the Internet increasingly may be viewed as just another utility that requires oversight.""

Comments

Geek revolt

[Antony-Kyre]

Geeks around the nation will revolt if this happens. It's not a good idea. Also consider that America isn't the whole world. They can't regulate the whole Internet now, can they?

Re:Geek revolt

[garcia]

Geeks around the nation will revolt if this happens.

This would only occur if porn was controlled. It then wouldn't be the geeks revolting, it would be everyone. No, I'm not kidding.

Look at the atrocities that have occured since 2001 under the guise of "protections"! You don't see *anyone* revolting against the government because of those do you? No, everyone (including my shamed self) are sitting here whining and wondering "what's next?" instead of swarming Washington DC in protest.

We are a sad excuse.

Re:Geek revolt

[kailoran]

'Smaller countries', like, say, China?

Seems like a naive idea, to me.

[Artifex]

Mitchell makes the classic error in assuming "the internet" only exists in the US.
I'd like to see him explain how he thinks the US is going to suddenly make rules for the rest of the world, with the many telecommunications providers run as government-owned monopolies, or even provide "Universal Service" for, say, Germany.

The internet will route around the damage, like it always does, and if the US enacts too many rules for its portion, American companies will lose business over it. That's all there is to it. In fact, since everyone is already plenty upset over ICANN retaining monopolistic levels of control, any further attempts to exercise control over countries will possibly lead to them setting up an entire infrastructure alternative in defiance.

Re:Seems like a naive idea, to me.

[squiggleslash]

The PSTN "is regulated by" the FCC. The PSTN exists throughout the world too.

In practice, the Internet will receive the same type of regulation as the PSTN. That is, the component of it that exists in the US will be under the FCC's "thumb", who will generally have a largely hands-off approach as far as users go, but some regulation aimed at ensuring interoperability, competition, basic service provision, and universal service, from the infrastructure providers.

And people will talk about it as if that's a bad thing, but quite honestly, I don't think it is. There's nothing really wrong with how the PSTN is regulated, and I can't see any problem with the Internet being dealt with the same way. As the Internet becomes more of a critical component of the modern economy, and as provision becomes more and more consolidated, we'll need to see some oversight to prevent wholesale abuses by the powerful.

To put it another way: All work and no play makes BellSouth's CEO a dull boy.

Who cares? The future needs no FCC.

[dada21]

I feel the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional organizations in the Federal government today.

The FCC is basically the big media conglomerates arm in government, creating an extremely high cost of entry in media markets, preventing smaller companies or individuals from trying to compete. The days when we needed the FCC are over -- we have so many different ways to communicate that we don't need any regulation over those systems. Any regulation that takes 5 years to create will be superceded by competitive companies finding loopholes (or bribing their way past restrictions).

Even the old belief that airwaves are limited and should be regulated is bunk. Interference from large broadcasters is a myth. Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together? It isn't the FCC that's helping this situation, it is manufacturers working with one another so they can all compete.

The telephone company is dead -- as WiFi or faster wireless bandwidth is made available, even cell phones will be antiquated. I can imagine a near-future of open bandwidth, frequency-hopping competitive technologies that walk all over each other yet don't conflict. The more power you want to broadcast, the more energy you'll need to do so. If some large radio tower company wanted to block EVERY FREQUENCY for hundreds of miles, do you know how much it would cost them? Look at just the FM radio spectrum -- they couldn't afford it. A 50,000 watt radio station broadcasting at one tiny sliver of a frequency has a HUGE electric bill. The only way you could stay in business is with advertisers, and who wants to be affiliated with a company that burns everyone's communications?

Without the FCC, we'd see thousands or tens of thousands of community broadcasters. Picture Mr. Universe versus 10,000 mosquitos. Who would win?

If the FCC regulates the Internet, we'll find ways to get around it. The user can obfuscate transmitted information faster than our government can decode it. If they find quick ways to decode it, we'll find other ways to hide information within information. The FCC can attempt to regulate the Internet, but it will be a failure. Information has found freedom, and there is no stopping it. 6 year olds are using google, 72 year olds are using Skype. Can a government "of the People, by the People and for the People" go against the People any long?

I'm ready to make an effigy of the FCC and burn it. Are you?

Next I'll be paying taxes to the US..

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC is welcome to set up it's own Great Firewall of China in the US and regulate and/or censor its own piece of the net. I, however, don't live in the US and don' t feel that the US government has a right to govern my activities. I didn't vote for anybody in the US government.

Re:not the internet

[lawpoop]

How will the FCC distinguish VOIP and telephony packets over other packets?

Re:not the internet

[lucabrasi999]

Plus the article in question pertains to VOIP and telephony not the entire internet.

While I certainly don't like the idea that the FCC would start "policing" the US part of the internet, I would like to point out that the original submission was not an "article", it was a "blog".

In other words, it was some person speculating, on their employer's website, that the FCC might consider regulating the internet. It was not fact. And, as far as I know, the FCC has not even publicly mentioned this as a potential area of regulation.

Not very much

[vertinox]

Computerworld's Robert Mitchell wonders if the FCC could one day have regulatory power over the Internet.

Well the FCC can regulate the internet as much as it could regulate a web server in Bulgaria or China.

Otherwise known as... Not very much.

However I'm sure they could enforce rules on state side web hosts, but being the internet and all it doesn't take much to move your site to say... Bulgaria or China, but I think Canada or Mexico would do just fine.

What about Dial-up?

[sharkb8]

The government never tried to reulgate Internet content when everyone was using dial-up. It seems like they would have had a better argument since dial-up uses regular phone lines to to transmit data.

This is just the old, entrenched telcos trying to shut down VOIP as competition to their antiquited landline systems. They already tried to do this by having the FCC force VOIP companies implement 911 service. And when cellular providers still don't have 911 service wiorking properly, and the cell companies have been around far longer than the VOIP companies.

The telcos are regualted because they were given a limited monopoly in landline service in the early 20th century. VOIP providers have no monopoly, as anyone can send data packets over an existing 'net connection.

The problem is that the exorbitant taxes applied to landlines, and the innefficiencies in the existing infrastructure make landlines unattractive for more and more people. I gave up my landline, and just have cell phones for my family.

If the FCC starts regulating VOIP as a communcations system, will they try to regulate TeamSpeak? What Battlefield 2 or XBox Live, both of which have Voice capability? What about IM systems with voice?

RF anarchy isn't workable

[ScentCone]

Even the old belief that airwaves are limited and should be regulated is bunk. Interference from large broadcasters is a myth. Ever wonder how your house can have 3 cell phones, 3 cordless phones and 15 wireless accessories work together?

Wow, man - are you even listening to yourself? The airwaves are limited, by the laws of physics. If we both broadcast on the same frequency, some device somewhere is going to be seeing each of our signals at an equal, and equally useless strength. Why can I be typing this message through Wi-Fi in my house, watching AIM on my mobile phone next to me, and knowing that my wireless house phone will still work, even when I'm microwaving my soup for lunch? Exactly because there are regs and legal recourse when people screw with what makes all of that work. Do you REALLY want the guy next door deciding that it's OK by him if he puts up a megawatt transmitter that happens to step exactly on all of those devices' carriers?

The telephone company is dead -- as WiFi or faster wireless bandwidth is made available

Well, I suppose that depends on what the meaning if "is" is (heh!). Since I talked to my mom on her copper land line this morning, I'm thinking it's not actually dead. And since I talked to my mother-in-law, in rural Virginia, just the other day... you know, in an area that's too mountainous for any line-of-site carrier, and where cable-based broadband is years away, and DSL won't go the distance... the "telephone company" isn't dead there, either. It's the only thing that DOES work, or will work for a long time.

If some large radio tower company wanted to block EVERY FREQUENCY for hundreds of miles, do you know how much it would cost them?

So what? There are people with lots of money that would love vanity moments like that. You know, people like George Soros who are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to impact elections... he'd LOVE to blanket all of downtown NY, even for a few minutes, with a signal no one could escape. Or, what about someone who doesn't care about paying the electric bill? You know, one-last-gasp type idealogical or vandal broadcasting?

Can a government "of the People, by the People and for the People" go against the People any long?

You wouldn't be referring to the government that actually created the 'net in the first place, would you? You know, as a defense research project? You make "the internet" sound like it actually exists as single thing. It's not. It's a bunch of individual, corporate, insitutional, government, and foreign networks all communicating with each other - a network of networks. If municipal governments are supposed to start trusting VoIP for 911 calls, etc, then they are going to expect a certain amount of predictability and interopability in the way that some of the those networks talk to each other. If that can't be established, then they'll just continue to expect "the telephone company" to take care of it for them, and enforce that through the large regulatory burdens that those companies carry.

I say go ahead

[Cytlid]

That's right.

  Let's see... the FCC regulates a technology (such as wireless transmissions, or spectrum) by understanding the underlying technology, and making sure people don't abuse it, or interfere with others' communications illegally, etc.

  So, when they understand IP, and the underlying technologies of the internet, they can begin to fathom how to "regulate" it. What they're going to realize is technical regulations are already in place, built into the protocol. It maintains itself. It's social regulation that we need.

Anyone who designs, implements, manages, and troubleshoots interconnected networks would welcome this social regulation. I think they're in for a big surprise. It is not just going to be VOIP, one tiny protocol. I would love to send my abuse complaints, virus reports, compromises, cracking attempts, phising attempts, and whatnot to the FCC. They can contact the parties responsible for the remote networks, and take some of these issues off my back. I'm hoping they're prepared. I'm hoping they're prepared to start diplomatic communications' regulations with other countries.

So FCC, here's your homework... speak to those responsible in China, and make sure all of their IP space reverse resolves to something. When you're finished, come back, and I'll have your next task.
This will be the first of millions of requests I'm (personally) going to have.

Either that or stick to regulating old, outdated communications. I'm ready when you are!

e911 is the real issue

[writerjosh]

The real issue here is not some need for the FCC to regulate the internet, but for the FCC to ensure that the use of VoIP has 911 emergency access. As VoIP becomes more frequently used, it's only natural and smart for the FCC to impose 911 emergency access to VoIP users in order to ensure a very basic level of user safety:

"TCS said that it will partner with infrastructure operators that can deliver VoIP E911 calls to Public Safety Answering Points serving approximately 190 million people in the US.

Its service is designed for mobility and enables the routing and delivery of the E911 VoIP caller's registered location information to the PSAP nearest to the emergency caller's current location.

John Crabill, 911 coordinator for Montgomery county, stated, "Having a full-scale solution in place for the routing and delivery of the caller's current registered location in the event they place an E911 VoIP call provides our citizens with the added security in knowing that we can find them in the event of an emergency." In June 2005, the FCC published its E911 Order requiring all interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically provide E911 services to all customers as a standard, mandatory feature without customers having to specifically request this service, and without the ability to opt out."

source

Re:How about the FEC?

[sd_diamond]

To me, free speech is a basic form of property rights. Government can't tell me what I can do with my body and how I use it, when I am on my property or on public land.

I don't think there's really a connection there. The government doesn't restrict your speech any more when you're on somebody else's private property than when you are on your own or on public land. The owner of that property can tell you to leave if he doesn't like what you're saying, and the law will be on his side, but that has nothing to do with speech -- he can ask you to leave for any reason he wishes (apart from the clear exceptions laid out for businesses in anti-discrimination laws).