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?
Where I live Shaw already does something very similar to this. They insert a small bit of fuzz into the analog system so that you will upgrade to their digital system.
I think it's along the lines of ISPs doing this without informing their customers what has happened. Their customers need not know that SBC extracted a heavy toll from YouTube or Google in order to deliver their video. And that even if you could know when your connection was tiered, no market offering would exist for an untiered connection. In other words, they're levying their massive subscriber base against people who profit from them having a decent internet connection, by holding it ransom. You'll note they aren't calling it anything like QoS, because that would imply that the offering has some level of reliability / quality.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
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.
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!!
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).