Slashdot Mirror
FTC Says 'Slow Down' on Net Neutrality
Bushido Hacks writes "The Washington Post reports that the Federal Trade Commission has fumbled the Network Neutrality Act, again, as of this past week. However, the FTC defended its actions saying that their decision was not a give-in to the big telecom and cable companies. Instead, the FTC report urges caution on Network Neutrality Regulation. While this news is disappointing, the FTC's decision appears to be thought out and a message to remind people to not let the subject of Net Neutrality be abandoned by the general public so corporations could undermine the interest of consumers. We discussed the row this created, but with constant stalling tactics being employed here how long will it be before net neutrality opponents craft their own legislation?"
Americans are still consumers, and while we may be a largely unthinking purchasing mass, people can quite easily distinguish "shitty" from "awesome" which is exactly the distinction one can make between a mass media run network with terrible latency and low bandwidth and one run by, say, Google.
If the networks go to hell in a flaming hand basket, what would it take for Google to start lighting up fiber they already own? Get a few major metropolitan areas wired up, get word out, and consumers will begin switching in droves. It wouldn't take much pressure beyond that to wake up the telecoms and get them right back into the game.
I'm no free market blind follower, but this seems like a situation when a viable and large enough competitor is sitting in the wings, ready to smack the wannabe monopolists upside the head if they attempt their backwater cousin fucking ideas of raping the connections we pay for.
Look, I know that everyone here gets regular blowjobs from network neutrality, but I'm just wondering. Having looked at the Patriot Act, and the YES-YOU-CAN-SPAM act, and our "healthcare system" (I use the term loosely), and our current, uhm, whatever it is, but it's certainly not a war, over in Iraq...
Are you guys SURE you want the US federal government legislating this?
I have said it before, and I suppose it's time to say it again: Most of the time, when I see someone try to articulate what "network neutrality" means, that they want legislated, they end up with a set of words which, if they were a law, would prevent me from blocking spammers and DDOSers. There are good reasons for which networks are sometimes rather decidedly non-neutral about which traffic they carry, and there are real reasons for which people would like to have the option of paying for guaranteed bandwidth.
Most of the horror stories come down to "what if I only got the sorta dodgy networking I'm currently paying for, but other people were able to buy a better network." Not all; there's real potential for abuse. I just don't think I trust the US federal government to come up with something better, no matter how smart or good the people advocating it are... And honestly, a lot of the advocacy I see is knee-jerk reactions that haven't even bothered to gloss over the question of whether teergrubing should be illegal, or any of the dozens of other technical questions this raises.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Yea, because Google, who is in bed with the CIA, would be a MUCH better choice. Google will probably be the Internet 2(read Net Neutralized)bringer of doom. What else would they need all that fiber and all those data centers?
The internet should not be run by a handful of corporations, or one corporation. The Internet should stay the decentralized network that it is.
Simply giving control to a single company, Google(as you seem to be OK with), is not the answer. if anything it is worse than five companies.
Just my two cents.
The Captain
The problem is that "net neutrality" sounds so techie and confusing, and the majority of Americans have no idea what the issue is, nor do they care. This is especially dangerous for consumers because in cases where the public is disineterested, lawyers for corporations, unions or special interest groups usually get to write the legislation nearly verbatim.
I don't think you understood his point. Google wouldn't take over the internet, they would provide a net-neutral alternative. And, given their history, it would be low cost as well.
So, it plays out like this: Major players start degrading service of non-paying services, Google enters the market and starts providing service that people expect, gaining them an immediate large share of the market. After the major players get told that it's too bad, and that Google isn't violating any anti trust laws, they have no choice but to move to a network neutral policy just to compete.
That's the hope at least, if the government isn't willing to look out for it's own citizens.
If the networks go to hell in a flaming hand basket, what would it take for Google to start lighting up fiber they already own? Get a few major metropolitan areas wired up, get word out, and consumers will begin switching in droves. It wouldn't take much pressure beyond that to wake up the telecoms and get them right back into the game.
What would it take? Well, a hell of a lot more money and influence than Google or any other company has.
Light up some fibers? You think that is all that it takes? It appears you have a poor understanding of the telecommunications infrastructure. Since the telcos and cable companies are no longer required to share their lines, Google (or whoever) would have to dig up every street and yard in the United States to offer a competing service. Google doesn't have that kind of money, the cities wouldn't let them do it and granny wouldn't let them dig up her rose garden. Furthermore, there is currently no wireless technology that can provide competitive bandwidth on a large scale.
While it's true that Google has bought up some dark fiber, that only allows them to bypass the core network to a certain extent. The key is the last mile and it's locked-up in the hands of the telcos and the cable companies.
It is very naive to believe there is a viable competitor waiting in the wings. There isn't one. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile. It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
I would have expected they would have gotten a clue that people are being abused these last few years by companies such as Comcast. We can't trust them to do the right thing. So why do politicians think the market will make sure it's ok? After all, we have very few options unless you live in SunnyVale California.
Most states don't have 20 or 30 options for highspeed Internet. If a company goes nuts you have to put up or go dial up (like that's an option these days).
I urge people to contact the FTC and let them know what's on you mind. This needs to be dealt with before Telco's make their own laws.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Don't get me wrong, Google does some cool stuff (gmail, google maps (I really like the hybrid setting), picasa, etc), but at the massive ammount of information they log on everyone is very scary.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Net neutrality legislation is a blunt instrument because nobody has any idea exactly what the Telcos want to do. We don't want a law that's too broad just to stop them from doing something that they have no desire to do because there's always the risk of also preventing perfectly legitimate behaviour.