Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Votes Yet Another Study of Net Neutrality

Posted by kdawson on from the analysis-paralysis dept.

yuna49 writes to let us know that the US Federal Communications Commission last week announced a Notice of Inquiry (PDF) into: "...the behavior of broadband market participants, including: (1) How broadband providers are managing Internet traffic on their networks today; (2) Whether providers charge different prices for different speeds or capacities of service; (3) Whether our policies should distinguish between content providers that charge end users for access to content and those that do not; (4) How consumers are affected by these practices." eWeek reports that the study is targeted at whether broadband providers are treating some content providers more favorably than others. Distinctly absent is any discussion about port filtering or other restrictions on Internet usage. The two Democrats on the Commission pressed for a broader "Notice of Rulemaking" to move more quickly towards a policy of non-discrimination. The Republican majority ignored these arguments and voted for an Inquiry, to which the Democrats acceded.

4 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Along these lines... by kmac06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My question for Net Neutrality has always been: why do we need a law like this? What is currently happening that needs to be fixed by this law? Forcing websites to cough up to be given a high bandwidth access to end users would be bad, but (AFAIK) that's not happening. I really don't see a need for this type of law, and I see no reason to make a law to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

    1. Re:Along these lines... by bendodge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am personally against the current form of net neutrality. I think that government intervetion is almost always bad. The ONLY regulations that should be passed:

      1. All backbone providers must allow other providers to connect to them on a naked pipe.
      2. All providers must use standard protocols*.
      3. Providers may only throttle data/bandwidth based on protocol, not orgin/destination.

      *I'd leave defining "standard" up to ICAAN, with these additional rules:
      1. The protocol must be open - anyone can see how it works and get specs for it.
      2. Usage or modification of the protocol must not be restricted by patents or copyright.

      I believe anything more is harmful to the free market.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    2. Re:Along these lines... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except for throttling by protocol, I would agree. Throttling by protocol sounds reasonable, but I don't trust the ISPs to do it equitably. They'll do something smarmy like slow video then charge a special rate for it, even if there is plenty of bandwidth available. In theory, rule #1 in your list means I can just switch providers, but I doubt the list will include someone completely neutral.

      How's this? They can throttle based on protocol but only using the throttling rules that I set.

      Also, the major bandwidth hogs will just change protocols. BitTorrent over HTTP anyone? It will just result in another escalation war like the telephone blocking scheme.

  2. #5 by mastershake_phd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    #5: What happened to the subsidy money given to these providers?

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/202124 0_F.shtml

    --
    Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.