ISPs Blow Off Stanford Net Neutrality Hearing

eldavojohn writes "The FCC & Stanford hoped to host an on-campus debate over Net Neutrality and invited AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner to take part. None of them showed up. Unfortunately, only one side of the issue was voiced despite Stanford being home to people opposing Net Neutrality. At the hearing, the FCC Commissioner stated: 'Consumers have come to expect and will continue to demand the open and neutral character that has always been the hallmark of the Internet. The Commission is currently examining several petitions and complaints according to which broadband providers have intentionally and secretly degraded applications in a way that undermines the open and interconnected character of the Internet.'"

Comments

Should I stop holding my breath?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Does the FCC have any actual pull here, or are they as impotent as the Better Business Bureau? I'd like to actually believe that somet good could come from all this talk..

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[budgenator]

The leverage for the FCC would be indirect, everybody that provides Broadband internet that I know of also provides services that are more directly in the FCC domain; if an ISP is being thought of as obnoxious pricks they are less likely to get the benefit of the doubt in other matters where the FCC really can extract a pound of flesh. I would think that the ISP's would be on their best behavior until after the elections.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[aldousd666]

Amen. I'd buy you a drink. The best way to get what you want is to make sure that you make it more financially advantageous, especially from non-regulatory pressure, for the corporations to see things your way. I agree with you, and I'd expand a bit more...

Legislation on issues such as this would only allow for one more possible point of corruption for the big interests who want to break the rules. I'm not sure which government has jurisdiction over 'the internet' anyway. Does it only apply to your customers if you're an american company? Or only your customers? Are your customers anyone who pays you money, or anyone that does business with anyone who pays you money? What if they're outside the US? What exactly are they going to regulate anyway... traffic between any two hosts? Traffic on a particular network? Is that network considered to be of a subnet as defined by an IP Mask? Perhaps of an ownership block? Maybe it's a trail of routes. Even if we are unfortunate enough to have the government step in and force people to act more communist, the law has to be enforcible and there has to be a method of clearly showing tort anyway in court. It also has to appear in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. That last bit might be the hardest part of the whole idea to swallow.

For Net-Neutrality to have some kind of effect, you have to show that some party violated some rule, and that some body of enforcement has jurisdiction over the issue. If you can't answer every one of these questions about every incident then you can just only point and cry foul every time someone snuffs a packet out. As if our legal system wasn't muddy enough already. Next thing you know it'll be illegal to have personal and corporate firewalls.

Re:Should I stop holding my breath?

[The_Wilschon]

Ok, how about this: If you own a segment of wire, fiber, etc. which is on US soil and is used to carry IP traffic, then you may either not inspect or interfere with the packets (best effort), or you may be liable for any illegal activity which involves that segment.

This is, I understand, how common carrier status works. AFAICT, the telecoms are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by inspecting and interfering but maintaining immunity.

they have other plans

[wizardforce]

They are not interested in debating the issue at stanford, they would much rather lobby elsewhere to slip in legislation that destroys net neutrality without anyone noticing.

FTC and the definition of "Internet Access"

[HaeMaker]

I think the FTC should get involved and determine what the definition of "Internet Access" and "ISP" are. If net neutrality was a requirement to be labeled "ISP" or providing "Internet Access" I think it would help the consumer greatly. This would have also helped with those old wireless carriers who used to provide web-only access but called it "Internet Access" (I think the are all gone now).

Similar to:

"USDA Organic"

Or

"This product has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

Well, why not?

[Creepy Crawler]

Why would the industry be willing to go to a bitch-fest where they are the targets? I know if I was in charge of profiteering, I sure wouldnt go to a university to say that Im right... I'd hide away under the senators and congresscritters desks while passing out hundreds to get what I want passed.

win by default

[sdnoob]

if the major isp's that oppose net neutrality don't bother to show up for a hearing on the issue put on by their government regulatory agency, then they should LOSE by default and net neutrality should be mandated.

Re:win by default

[Ihmhi]

If that happened, they would likely sue blah blah blah unfair hearing etcetera. I don't think I have to spell out what would happen if the FCC gave "they didn't show up to a debate at a college" as their reason.

That said, I expect that Stanford was going to have a properly moderated and timed debate on the issue. That's about as fair of a discussion on the subject as you can get, and that's exactly why the ISPs did not show up. Fairness is neither in their favor nor their business practices.

And meanwhile...

[Chris Mattern]

...while he says all those pretty words, the people who actually own the wires have shown how seriously they take him.

Re:Government granted monopolies

[falconwolf]

the government *could* bid out such monopolies to companies based on who guarantees the best service/price ratio.

Or government could separate ownership of infrastructure from ownership of those who provide services the infrastructure can provide and require the owner to allow open access.

Falcon

Gee

[Black Parrot]

Let's give rich people the right of way at intersections and higher speed limits on the highways while we're at it.