Slashdot Mirror
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.""
No, they can't. They could however end up regulating all traffic into or out of the United States like some smaller countries do. I hope this does not happen, but that is one possiblitiy. When smaller countries do this, the only ones really affected are the residents of that country. If the US did this that would affect a good deal of the world community due to the amount of Internet services and Internet users centered in the US. The US can't force the world to learn English, but we are doing a pretty good job at it.
With all this talk from various Baby Bells about how they will provide different levels of service for traffic originating from someone other than their customers, we might actually *want* a little regulation in the future.
Before the FCC was co-opted by the Religious Right AKA the American Taliban, they actually did things like shut down pirate radio stations and make sure that the phone company actually provided the service they were legally obligated to provide.
Obviously, I don't want the FCC keeping my internet porn from me, but if some routers in the middle are slowing my downloads because I'm not their direct customer, government regulation might be a solution.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Interesting article, thanks.
I'm not sure if I could ever get behind a law that enforces true de-regulation. If they want to de-regulate old laws, just abolish them. There is ZERO need for new laws. I'm all for a new amendment limiting bills to only 500 words, and another amendment forcing Congress to abolish 3 laws for every 1 bill they propose (even if the bill doesn't pass, the 3 laws get abolished). My final amendment is for Congress to cut $2 out of the budget for every $1 they propose (even if the budget doesn't pass, they must still nuke $2 out of the old one).
That's about all I can support, law-wise.
I hoped this would seem obvious, but so far, no one has mentioned it yet: Regulating "service" does not mean the same thing as regulating "content".
The FCC currently regulates phone SERVICE in the US. You can call up almost anyone, with only the most abusive of calls restricted (go ahead, just try to report someone for harassment... It takes nothing short of a knowingly-taped confession of intent to harass to get anything done). As a result, we have reasonably cheap universal phone access, which without the FCC would cost more, and only even exist for those lucky enough to live in a dense population center.
The FCC also regulates allocation of RF spectrum. This not only allows things like radio and television to exist (imagine trying to watch your favorite show with 100 competing stations all very near the same frequency in the same geographic area), but makes even the somewhat-unregulated uses such as WiFi possible (imagine trying to transmit data with some moron using a sparkgap transmitter next door).
The FCC also regulates broadcast television CONTENT. This, as we all know, counts as a giant crock of constitution-violating BS and should cease immediately. The US government does NOT exist to force wholesome Christian values on us via the whims of the PTC.
But don't make the mistake of assuming "regulation" equals "censorship". Some regulation does indeed contribute to the greater good. We just need to vigilantly watch for and prevent/stop abuses of regulatory powers when they start taking away rights we otherwise have.
Ok, so the FCC was given the right to regulate the air waves under the premise that due to the relative lack of choice (back when there were 4 TV channels), and due to the fact that the EM spectrum is a public resource that is leased by private companies.
But now that there are a lot more than 4 channels, how does this continue to fly? Is it simply because the EM spectrum is leased that the FCC somehow has the power to stop people from saying shit on ABC?
What happens if these broadcasting companies start moving over to WiMAX/UWB-style technologies, where a huge part of the spectrum is used and certain frequencies are no longer require to be reserved (or leased) from the government? Will this then finally kill the last argument the government has to continue to limit free speech on TV and radio?
And how can there be proposals to regulate the internet and cable when none of the "justifications" for censorship exist in these mediums?
Seems to me that is a damn good case to be made that the FCC's power to censor, at least in the case of cable/internet/non-leased-EM-Spectrum mediums, is a direct and unjustifiable violation of the 1st Amendment.
Regulation has nothing to do with distinguishing VOIP packets or controling volume, it's about capitalizing on a growing industry, and for the telcos asking for the regulations it's about leveling the playing field.
Have you ever looked at your (US) phone bill? I rely on my cell phone but keep a basic dialtone at home in case of power outage, tsunami, terroist act (I live in NYC) or some other catastrophe. Ove 50% of the $20/month I pay comes from surcharges, including:
FCC Line Charge 6.40
911 Surcharge 1.00
Federal USF Surcharge 0.66
Federal Tax 0.50
Surcharge(s) 0.91
NY State/Local Sales Tax 1.40
In theory VOIP can offer the same service at the same cost for half the price because of the regulatory surcharges and taxes. The phonecos are put at a competetive disadvantage simply because their bill includes fees the VOIPs don't. If you had a choice of dialtones and one was 50% cheaper than the other what would you choose? More importanly what would the average technologically ignorant consumer chose?
http://www.worldsoccerbars.com