Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Being Examined by FTC
elrendermeister writes to tell us Computerworld Security is reporting that the Federal Trade Commission has formed an Internet Access Task Force to evaluate the validity of claims that large broadband providers should be able to limit or block web content from competitors. From the article: "Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras on Monday also called on lawmakers to be cautious about passing a Net neutrality law, which could prohibit broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from giving their own Internet content top priority, or from charging Web sites additional fees for faster service. [...] 'While I am sounding cautionary notes about new legislation, let me make clear that if broadband providers engage in anticompetitive conduct, we will not hesitate to act using our existing authority,' she said. 'But I have to say, thus far, proponents of Net neutrality regulation have not come to us to explain where the market is failing or what anticompetitive conduct we should challenge.'"
I heard someone was developing a Firefox plugin that could detect a 'non-neutral' connection. Once it hits mainstream, providers would probably be reluctant to slow down some 'tubes' for mass phonecalls to tech-support or customer migration to another provider etc.
So how is that plugin coming along?
This whole Net Neutrality debate confuses me.
I know the basics and the concept of a 'Tiered Internet' but what I don't get is how people are so outraged about tiered internet when such a system exists for cable tv.
No one is outraged that the basic package of cable doesn't include X and Y channel but when the same issue is raised against the internet they yell out 'DON'T BLOCKS MY GOOGLES!!'
In some places the only Cable TV company is the same as the only ISP in an area so the debate over local monopolies doesnt hold either.
In my opinion, the solution is simple.
Any carrier that wants to restrict access loses their common carrier status. The providers are probably right to say they have the right to control their own networks. However, the minute they start controlling content, they should take responsibility for it. Common carrier status is all about not being responsible for/controlling what goes over the wires.
I'm willing to bet if the FCC said "go ahead, but you lose common carrier status" none of us would ever hear another word about this.
That sounds like BS. When DSL got started, the telcos dragged their butts flogging old IDSN and extra data telephone lines, both high margin and low investment cash cows. Along came Rythms and others providing first rate DSL services, then the Bells didn't like shared access on their premise. So they "tripped" over the power cords and other such tricks aimed at putting them out of business.
Ever notice when using a long distance provider that is not the same as your ISP or phone line? One might be surprised to learn the line operater is at fault in why your long distance is unstable.
There needs to be a fair access law on rate limiting and the like or they will do it again. This time, AOL/Time Warner might notch down google video, while MSN might slow down Linux/UNIX downloads... kidding right? It has happened before. And I am sure professional lobbiests are working over corrupted politicians right as we speak.
Much the same as TV advertisments screem at you while the show is mute and no one touched the volume.
Fair access is fair access, and putting some serious teeth in the law is what is needed or big corp greed will decide what is usuable by you and I and what is not. Anyone who does not believe in this type of law is in the pocket of big business and is not really carring much about the consumer.
And allow governemtns to profit from the convictions, so they will pursue violators.
Are you implying internet traffic is unreliable now, and will be 'cured' by a non-neutral net?
The only reason I can see the internet traffic being unreliable is because the ISP's sell more bandwidth than they actually have. Now that people use the bandwidth they paid for, the ISP's infrastructure is strained and they need a way out. Its a choice of upgrading their infrastructure, or somehow forcing people to use less, or prioritizing "important" traffic.... They are too cheap to do the first cos it will dig into profits, they will have trouble doing the second cos they cant control the masses, and so the only viable option is the third, and if they do it right, they can charge more!!
Man, that poor guy really got screwed by that. It proves the point, really.
It's like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Except the blind men have all gone to talk to their congresscritter and told him different things about the white elephant that is the 'Internet': "It is like a snake!" "It is like a tree!" "It is like a rope!" etc. The congresscritter tries to figure out how to reconcile all these different things people are shouting him into a something that could be put down on paper -- he *has* to define what the elephant is, somehow, so he can define what it is not, to pass laws against people selling what they claim to be an elephant when it isn't. (i.e. if a tiered service is NOT 'Teh Internet', then a provider shouldn't be able to claim they are providing internet service if all they provide is a tiered service.)
So he tried to come up with something, a "series of tubes", and each of the blind men, individually, are now sneering/laughing at him, each self-satisfied and smug in the knowledge that he and he alone has a clear picture of what the white elephant really is and knows what the best definition of the elephant is, and that the congresscritter was just too dumb to listen. Whereas the problem is that the congresscritter probably tried to listen to too many blind men individually, rather than forcing the blind men to come up with an agreement on what the white elephant is among themselves first.
Thus the blind compound their blindness with foolishness and arrogance.
From my perspective as a tech-savvy end-user, "the internet" is the whole of the accessable IP address space.
The point of an "Internet Service Provider" is to give me an IP address and the ability to exchange IP packets to any other IP address, at the rate advertised by my ISP (possibly limited by the rate advertised by *their* ISP), with reasonable uptime, latency and frequency of dropped/delayed packets.
That's it.
Now, if you're a large business things get more complicated. You want to have much tighter definitions of what those "reasonable" values are, for instance. But the overall concept is basically the same--you want to be able to exchange IP packets with other IP addresses.
I have a friend who works with a large telco, also a large backhaul provider, and they would love to deprioritize skype.
It's obvious the telcos want to protect their phone line revenues, which would exactly be illegal monopolistic behavior (use one monopoly to protect/extend another).