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?"

Comments

Let them get rid of their own network neutrality.

[Spazntwich]

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.

Pretty one-sided coverage, here.

[seebs]

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.

Re:Pretty one-sided coverage, here.

[sumdumass]

It is quite simple really, all the legislation needs to say is that

no provider or network owner can distinguish between the traffic on their network based on a payment in access of a normal fees others are charged or charge individual parties additionally or above what it charges to connect the networks together.

In addition, no Internet Service provider or network connection in the service of the internet can charge more, restrict, throttle or otherwise interfere with the delivery of services and information to the requesting consumer. No network owner or ISP can cause by their own action, any service or information to be delivered to the consumer at data speed rates slower then the implied speed of their connect. Anyone advertising the implied speed of an Internet connection must make an honest effort at providing the services as they advertised it. Taking an action, installing a device or changing settings incidentally or on purpose is evidence of not acting in an honest manor.

This does not include the hosting company or private side of the network where a server isn't connected to the promise of speed and may be limited by their own service providers limits.

Each violation when done in mass or multiple instances shall be treated separately from each other and count as a separate and single violation. Each violation found to be willful will carry a $5000 fine and the parties involved are allowed to file suit for the same.

Something like that should mean that if they attempt to degrade your connection because of a payment a the website or service didn't make and that you are requesting, they are subject to a fine for each instance. So in cases of www.google.com being throttled, if 10,000 people are effected, they can sue for $5000 for each time they are effected, google can sue for 10,000*$5000 for having all those customers effected and the company involved would have to pay 10,000*$5000 to the government.

Lets say it slowed 5 visits down, that's 50,000,000 per incident or 250,000,000 to consumers, 250,000,000 to the government, and $250,000,000 to google. So unless they can make more then $750,000,000 from the deal in 5 turns, it is going to be a loss every time it is tried. But it allows for problems with the network that get fixed without demanding payment from third party people. The wording could probably be trimmed down a bit too. But it doesn't have to be complicated.

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[Capt_Insano_X]

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.

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

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[ushering05401]

Your idea of the market players regulating each other seems sound enough.

My interest lies elsewhere, though. We have an election coming and numerous candidates have already declared intent, raised millions of dollars, and started building their platforms.

Will one of them have the foresight to make this more than a John-McCain-style-uninformed-soundbyte type issue?

If so, I am ready to start thinking about actually voting in this election. No one candidate can reverse the course of the war in Iraq, no one candidate can fix healthcare/welfare/the educational system. One candidate can, however, help America understand how high the stakes are for this particular issue.

Believe me... I would much rather see some sort of movement by all candidates to drop the party lines and attempt to fix the war and all the other issues I detailed above. Failing that, I guess I will consider voting for any candidate that shows an understanding of this issue because the impact on our future can be so incredibly far reaching.

The candidates now have some added time to weigh in on this issue. I'll be watching.

Regards.

The problem...

[canUbeleiveIT]

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.

Well

[Lifyre]

I for one welcome this move. Many many problems have been caused by quick to act not very well thought out actions on the part of our government. The FTC said slow down lets make sure we don't fuck this up, that doesn't happen very often these days and should be welcomed with open arms. As a member of the US military I can say I am being directly effected by one of these rushes to judgment, maybe if the morons in the Hill had thought about shit first and made the intelligent rational choice instead of the "patriotic" one we wouldn't be in this mess. Just for the record I'm net neutral by leaning but I understand why they corporations want what they do. Here's the catch though they're very often regional monopolies. I've lived and live in a place where there are one or if you're lucky two broadband providers. If backbone and distribution access was free and open then we wouldn't be having this issue. Time Warner and Verizon etc.. would have already tried this and failed when many of their subscribers moved onto providers that didn't restrict their access.

I agree... sort of.

[WK2]

I completely agree with urging caution when it comes to regulation. However, the fact that they urge caution with network neutrality, but pretty much nothing else, suggests that they are singling out network neutrality.

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[RelaxedTension]

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.

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[TubeSteak]

Your idea of the market players regulating each other seems sound enough. I can only attribute your agreement with the GP to ignorance.

Most people do NOT have a choice when it comes to broadband. In many areas with relatively dense populations, the local cable/telco provider is given a monopoly, either by the town or the developer.

Ontop of that, the Internet as we know it, is an oligopoly run by a handful of national providers who get their bandwidth from a cartel of 9 Tier 1 ISPs and half-a-dozen or so important Tier 2 ISPs.

Because of this, no matter what you & the GP seem to think will happen, Google can't fly in and save the day by lighting up dark fiber. The "free" market is not so free.

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[calstraycat]

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.

Very disappointed in the FTC

[u-235-sentinel]

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.

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[Zonk (troll)]

And, given their history, it would be low cost as well. Not to mention that your every online move will be tracked and logged forever.

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.

I agree

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit

[RoboStone]

Any ISP logs every piece of information, remember the AOL search logs?