Slashdot Mirror
FCC Declares Intention To Enforce Net Neutrality
Unequivocal writes "The FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, told Congress today that the 'Federal Communications Commission plans to keep the Internet free of increased user fees based on heavy Web traffic and slow downloads. ...Genachowski... told The Hill that his agency will support "net neutrality" and go after anyone who violates its tenets. "One thing I would say so that there is no confusion out there is that this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles," Genachowski said when asked what he could do in his position to keep the Internet fair, free and open to all Americans. The statement by Genachowski comes as the commission remains locked in litigation with Comcast. The cable provider is appealing a court decision by challenging the FCC's authority to penalize the company for limiting Web traffic to its consumers.' It looks like the good guys are winning, unless the appeals court rules against the FCC."
What is meant by "network neutrality" is network bias. The proposed mandate is a pricing scheme biased in favor of those who consume more. If everyone is required to pay the same price regardless of usage, then those who consume little bandwitdth pay a relatively high rate (in dollars/bit) while those who consume much bandwidth pay a relatively low rate. This is a discriminatory pricing policy biased against small-time users. The grandma sending a weekly email to her grandkids is paying a much higher rate than the BitTorrent junkie sharing films. If you benefit from that mandate then go ahead and selfishly advocate for government to enforce a discriminatory pricing policy which benefits you, but at least have the honesty not call it "neutral".
How about "fuel neutrality," SUV owners pay the same price to fill up the tank on their Lincoln Navigators and Hummers as Toyota Prius users pay to fill up their tanks. Or "land neutrality", the buyer of a 100 acre estate pays the same price as the buyer of the shack on the wrong side of the tracks. Ok, you say, it would be absurd for the government to mandate that pricing and ludicrous to call that "neutral." Well, then you see my point.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The FCC, making a decision on its own and without direction from Congress, going after companies based on its own whims, basically completely ignoring the rule of law, is a "good guy", now?
If your cause is being approved-of by no one in government other than "that one guy who has a machine-gun and diplomatic immunity", you aren't winning.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Legislation that regulates competition is bad. Customers will decide if their carriers are doing whats best for them. People will talk, with or without the internet. As long as competitors are not locked out of the market by stupid government, bad businesses will die, better businesses will surface, and services will improve. While the system is not always perfect, and sometimes business do the "wrong thing" (this is where government SHOULD come in), it is best for the government to act ON THE EXCEPTION rather than try and shape the course of the industry.
Government created utopia is the fantasy of the intellectual elite. Its the masturbatory fantasy that "I could do it better, if only everyone will listen to me". Let the internet be free. Let the service providers restrict services on THEIR networks if THEY WANT TO. The customers on the receiving end will decide whether or not they want to endure it, and move on if it impacts them. Keep the government out of it. Keep the law out of it. Stop the insanity of the over regulation and let markets emerge, and let the government deal with those who would break that natural system of "supply and demand" and free market competition.
Recommend all of you in favor of government intervention take a look at the US Housing Market. You can also take a look at the demise of the Soviet Union.
20th century Marxism is not progress...
I see no reason at all to have policies based on protocol. That's a static decision, and static policy decisions can be inaccurate for any particular connection, out of date or simply ignorant of new protocols, and can/will be largely decided by politics not practicality
So, you wouldn't mind having telesurgery on a connection that wasn't protocol aware?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When the Republicans came in, I hated their standards on the web. But then, they weren't conservative, either.
Democratic folks seem to have us in mind, understand the need, but as has just been seen played out, they'd really love to cage us all.
Having them 'step in' for this much is a very dangerous thing. Ever hear of the Interstate Commerce Commission? It started as a lawsuit over about FOUR TRUCKS and to whom they would pay tax. A few decades later and now it's about weighing each and every truck, stopping them on the road all across the USA, a whole new level of taxing, and pork for political friends all over.
It won't end here. Obama or whoever, once the Fed gets it, it's time to get crazy because "I don't pay attention to politics; I'm a moderate". (Attack of the lazy voter!)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I would never get any kind of telesurgery where the success of the surgery depended on specific latency and reliability promises over the Internet.
How would you have surgery if there weren't local surgeons? Small villages in Africa and India don't have surgeons. Nor does it make sense to have a specialist every couple of hundred miles for an area that may only have 50,000 people in case of emergencies.
And no, a separate network doesn't cut it. All it does is add costs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?