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.""
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?
The FCC has no juristiction outside the US. Plus the article in question pertains to VOIP and telephony not the entire internet.
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.
Get off my launchpad!
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 Any regulation that takes 5 years to create will be superceded by competitive companies finding loopholes (or bribing their way past restrictions).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?
I can just see the international outcry if the FCC tried this. They hate ICANN as it is, this would just lend more credence to their distrust of our "stewardship" of the net.
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.
I had occasion to consult the FCC a few years ago and was told that a major function of the FCC was to ensure that the governmnet didn't take all the aavailable frequencies. There are other regulatory needs for control of frequencies and power of course but I would hope that we can stop them from expanding their control over what should be non-issues for them. Trouble is that the foxes want to control the hen house and this administration favors that view.
Nate
With ISPs trying to put restrictions on services, the FCC could guarantee universal service that does not discriminate based on content or business model.
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
I agree that the FCC, which is a US based entity, should never be able to have control over other entities outside the US, however this is not always the case. Political pressure along with economical pressure could force others into a pact of sorts allowing such a thing to happen.
It happens all the time in other aspects of life and government.
Ahhh, the last gasps of a outdated and useless bureaucracy trying to justify its existence. There are many congressmen who want to eliminate the FCC altogether. The main ones trying to keep it alive just want it as a censorship organization.
Regulating the internet is like trying to regulate the sun.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
I'd like to see internet service providers be just that... providing just bandwidth and pipe. Let customers shop elsewhere for things like email and webhosting, much like we can choose our longdistance provider.
Regulations against predatory pricing, filtered connections and the like would be good.
Nobody wants this, none of us at least, but the power big business has over government could push this through. There's much greater incentive for a stronger industry to lobby the government than, say, satellite radio, so I personally see this as a much more likely change than The Man keeping Howard Stern down. Right?
without the FCC you would never know when you turn on the TV if the rich prick down the street is broadcasting goatse over all the channels at 5000 watts
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If anyone should rule the internet in my opinon it should a U.N. body but I like the internet just the way it is right now!
Yes! Let's give the most corrupt organization on Earth dominion over the most powerful means of communications on Earth.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
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?
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.
Poll: Who here wants the internet to be regulated?
*crickets*
*hooting owl*
*tree frogs chirping*
*leaves rustling in the wind*
*lone howling wolf in the far-off distance*
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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
Um, you're kidding, right? These things coexist precisely because there is an FCC to keep them from stomping all over each other.
The Salon article isn't very clear, but it seems that they are excited about UWB and how easy it makes multiple access using simple pseudo-random chipping sequences. I guess that's fine, but my biggest bone with this approach is its colossal spectrum inefficiency. I just don't see how we could have spectrally efficient wireless communication without a regulating body.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
one would not need to broadcast all simultaniously, just long enough to interrupt the signal and hang the display enough for the viewer to see
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
...the FCC, like their telco hosts, are doomed to extinction. Consumer protection remains a priority, but currently the FCC doesn't provide even that. Face it, centralized communications facilities are dying, so will their regulators. We might be in for a wild time ('consumer beware' will take on a whole new emphasis) but these dinosaur at least are history.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
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!
FLR
Doesn't this just show that telephone systems over twisted pair is dying? Why does some government body need to regulate it into extended-existance?
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
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
Health Insurance Quotes
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.
"Can you really say that a rich guy would want to spend tens of thousand of dollars per hour in broadcasting goatse?"
Ever the capitalist, he would be that rich because people would pay him not to broadcast.
t-tag.com
That sends messages over IP to landlines. The FCC is already involved.
I believe (the US) government prefers to keep the internet "free and open" as long as they can "monitor" (aka spy) on all content. If general use of hard encryption became easy to use and popular, they would pull the plug damn quick.
The US can serve google with one of those secret warrants and have tons of information. They like that I think...
Be heard || Be herd
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Bush will have an original thought, which isn't illegal, or detrimental to this country's well being.
Or, for you "Stop bashing Bush! I love the big guy" type of people (there must be at least a few of you out there)...
The day that the FCC controlling the internet is a good idea, is the same day that Paris Hilton starts to look appealing. I mean really appealing... In a sexy, feminine sort of way. Not just the usual "She's not too attractive, but she's really dumb, and probably wasted enough of the time that you could steal yourself some money without her knowing" kinda way that most people look at her.
But seriously... The Internet's a global thing. Something that the avg. politician doesn't seem to realize. Unless you (virtually) wall yourself off from the rest of the world (China anyone?), this is a pointless arguement, as this would only hurt the US, and its citizens in the long run. Anyone with any common sense (no... Not the politicians with dollar signs in their eyes) can see this is a dumb idea. The very fact that it's a possibility is just scary as hell!
Oh yeah, get the government involved, THAT'LL make it better.
So you are basically advocating the idea that people who do not own anything should be treated as some kind of second class citizens?
Free speech as property rights? That's silly, the purpose of property rights is to allocate scarce resources.
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
I actually like the idea of broadband internet as a utility. It implies that
a) everyone have access to it like power, water, phone
b) it must be reliable like power,water,phone
c) it become commonplace like power, water, phone
d) when was the last time your phone company tried to pull stunts like verisign does (sitefinder)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Although I somewhat agree with the 500 word limit (though not that low; sometimes there are things which require a lot of description to make them unambigious), your other two ideas are almost frighteningly abusable. Think, for a moment, about how much power this would give the determined. A party could start trying to propose as many laws as they could, knowing full well that they wouldn't pass, and use this to take down other laws. Not only that, if anyone wanted to try to negotiate which laws would be removed, there would inevitably be times when good, useful laws would be removed to save other slightly more useful ones.
Same deal with spending. Guess where that $2 cut might come from. Military? Nope. Government works? Unlikely? Medical care, welfare, or other public benefits? Probably.
I'm all for trying to reduce government spending and trying to cut down on some of the absolutely useless laws we have, but that's like giving the less-than-scrupulous members of Congress a free present.
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).
The nature of the internet won't allow it. Plain and simple. Rather, I see the FCC keeping things as is, and continuing to regulate the telcos, who have the infrastructure that we use for the internet in place already. The telcos as they exist will fade - not out, just back - and they will simply maintain the basic infrastructure, and for those who continue to prefer traditional landline (which probably won't fade for about 20 years), will continue to provide services.
This sig no verb.
A couple of points:
1) Internet is not telephony.
Phone company regulator body should not regulate an entity, which is far bigger than telephony.
Internet is also not simply "communications". Communications is a very broad term, still FCC does not cover most form of communication.
If FCC has a sight on regulating the Internet, than telephony services over the Internet should move away from the Internet.
2)Internet is not an American entity.
Phone (or other globally available services over the Net) should not be regulated simply by American regulators.
National regulators should have certain control over the "ramps" only (probably at the local, national service provider level), but certainly not globally over the Internet as a whole.
3) Phone companies are way smaller entities than the Internet.
None of the smaller entities should have a right to negatively influence a way bigger entities than themselves, including phone companies. Should the US Postal Service have the say in any aspects of email?
No way, although they might have argued that email is just an other form of the mail service. If the US Postal Service could not - rightly - influence, block email, the phone companies should not be able telephony over the Internet either. Even if it would mean the existence of two, not connected phone services for while.
Let companies that established their telephony services on the Internet at the first place, accepting the Net as it is, without demanding to change it to serve the conditions of a technically outdated delivery method compete with traditional phone companies.
If at the end traditional phone companies die out - well, that's what happened with several industries during the history. Dinosour industries did die out instead of re-shaping, regulating the new industries, based on new technologies - even if they delivered the same service.
Can you imagine horse cart owner's association regulating the trucking industry?
Can you imagine companies operating Zeppelins regulating airlines?
I can't. Neither should you imagine traditional phone company interests regulating the Net.
You're right, it would be totally impractical for a government agency to put spying technology on an entire line of computer products. Yeah, no need to worry about THAT ever happening.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What you're paying for is the ability to connect to a separate long-distance carrier. This charge keeps going up, even though the cost of providing bulk transport keeps going down.