Slashdot Mirror
FCC Backs Net Neutrality, Chairman's Full Speech Posted
ArmyofGnomes writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski delivered Monday on President Obama's promise to back 'net neutrality' — but he went much further than merely seeking to expand rules that prohibit ISPs from filtering or blocking net traffic by proposing that they cover all broadband connections, including data connections for smartphones. Genachowski stated: 'I understand the Internet is a dynamic network and that technology continues to grow and evolve. I recognize that if we were to create unduly detailed rules that attempted to address every possible assault on openness, such rules would become outdated quickly. But the fact that the Internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can, or should, abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network, or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open Internet. ... In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.'"
for the folks who have read this in detail, can anyone spot any omissions or areas that they might have failed to cover in their ideas? Does it open anything up to exploitation?
It sounded good to me but for some reason I got a vibe of "they'll use this to exclude things not covered" in some way. I'm thinking about the promises of "up to" as one thing that's not touched upon, or the forcing of people to purchase certain bundles by financial incentive (such as being cheaper for internet + cable than naked internet - aka comcast again).
Rad to say the least. That's really exciting to hear ^___^
As a web hosting provider, I feel that they've left an important part of it out, the server side. At what point does net neutrality apply to me? They need to define this before they make any laws. Otherwise rules could be applied to things that they shouldn't.
It is exciting to see a political figure take a stance on something important that makes sense for once. I thought a man with enough backbone to fight for net neutrality publicly would certainly have a moustache but a quick google search proved my assumption wrong.
Perhaps he had some facial hair in a past life or something...
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Anyone care to make the argument that both political parties are indistinguishable in their policy positions, vis a vis corporate control of government agencies like the FCC? Because they aren't. There is no comparison, this being a good example, and anyone who suggests otherwise is smoking something.
Some protocols want high bandwidth, while others want low latency. I see no problem prioritizing like this. Anything beyond this is a slippery slope, though.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It's nice to have a chair that seems sincerely interested in consumer interests for once. But you know the telcoms will fight it, and they basically own Congress--so I don't hold out much hope. The FCC can be easily overridden by Congress at any time.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Gesundheit!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
In other words, they can still filter content. The ISPs' role should be nothing more than a dumb pipe. That is what we must demand. Let the police, with a PROPER warrant, handle the legalities.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I live in Canada.
Does this mean, if this passes, that I'll be able to watch services such as Hulu, which are otherwise blocked to ISP's outside the USA?
So is Verizon. And all the other wireless providers.
Cable companies too.
In fact, I can't think of any provider that won't object.
Best Slashdot Co
This story needs that tag or a similar one.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
It's almost like there are qualified, knowledgeable adults making policy decisions these days. Quite a difference from the days policy was dictated by partisan fund raisers who's qualifications were decided by how much money they could raise, right Brownie? Sometimes during the dark days it was like our government was being run by Romper Room.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Celebrate that the principals of network neutrality are finally getting airtime and understand that now is the time for increased scrutiny lest we give legal reasons to block the very things that they are trying to open.
there has been an awful lot of nonsense about how this outfit must be protected, and that outfit has to serve all its competitors, and the wireless joint doesn't have to talk to anybody. data is data, transmit corridors are transmit corridors, and the name on the company's door should not get into it. the same rules for all would be a wonderful thing all the way around. regulate all or deregulate all, but do it at the same time all the other rules for an open network are promulgated. it's overdue to end the confusion and protectionism.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The CAN-SPAM act makes spam legal, so long as it complies with the act.
Do you want to get into the details of legal spam vs. illegal spam?
What we should be doing is requiring the telecommunications companies to declare themselves as "Common Carrier" or not. If they are, then they get protections under the law but can't discriminate. If they aren't, they can filter, but lose some of their legal protection.
So, ISPs could offer "family safe filtering" or the like, but to do so, they have to declare that they're not a "Common Carrier".
Disclaimer: I used to work for a small (3k user) ISP, and still hold stock in the company that bought it out. I'm also an elected official, and know that passing even the most mundane of laws takes months, and even then likely doesn't plan for every possibility.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
+5 Insightful
I think the title would have been a lot funnier if it were: "FCC Backs Net Neutrality, Chairman's Full Speech Available on Pay-Per-View"
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
It's one thing to say that an ISP should content regardless of the content provider. It is another thing to say that they should not be able to prioritize traffic. Real time applications (VOIP) may need priority over non-real time applications; protocols with smaller packets, no connection, etc might be prioritized while the bit-torrents could (and should) be degraded.
There is a huge difference between the content and the protocol. If you want efficient networks that allow everyone to access teh common resources you will allow ISPs to filter based on protocol but not based on the content within the protocol.
But this entire conversation is deceptive... Do bit-torrents have legitimate purposes? Sure. Can they be accomplished by another protocol? As long as you aren't downloading 20g/day of stolen movies/music. I for one beleive that those who funded, built, and maintain the networks should have both the right and the responsibility to manage their networks so that all users can access resources and preventing this will cause the degradation of the internet in favor of a few greedy users.
This entire statement does not use the word "torrent" once and it is clear that it does not address the core issues involved... bandwidth whores.
Every time this issue gets brought up on air, those jackasses (Dennis in particular) cover the story like "net neutrality" means is some socialist takover of the internet.
They think it means that ATT will have to build it and then give it all away for free.
If they REALLY understood it, they would realize the ground rules for building the internet are one of the greatest successes of CAPITALISM in the past 50 years.
It encourages innovation, calculated risks, and investment towards long-term gains by corporations.
But, without net neutrality rules in place, there's nothing to stop your ISP from directing you to BING.com when you typed GOOGLE.com, because Microsoft threw some promotional money at them, and that's a massive problem.
I guess as a slashdot reader I'm supposed to be for "net neutrality" however I trust profit grabbing companies more than I trust the FCC. If I don't like the way a company is routing their traffic I can at least switch companies. If the FCC gets involved and they do something stupid there is no alternative. The worst case for a business blocking/routing traffic is that someone else creates a competing ISP.
Net-Neutrality, that sounds like a swell idea by golly gee whiz!
I like being Neutral and if the FCC is behind it then I am all for it. I trust the government to do the right thing because they are all saints no matter what party is in power.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
. . . but of course this is Slashdot, so most people won't really take notice. It's much easier to shake your head and say "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," and get modded up to +5. Here's one recent example anyway:
Obama shrugs off request to drop CIA abuse probe
..no more ISP automatic bans on home servers, or forcing you to pay "extra" for that "privelege". The promise of the net is that it is a full two way street for data sharing (basically), and they keep trying to turn it into a combo cable TV and cellphone "plan", with restrictions and locked down features up the wazoo.
The speech states "Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network."
Specifics are forthcoming: "I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I've discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. This notice will provide the public with a detailed explanation of what we propose to do and why."
-
We will need to wait for specifics, but I hope that in part this means that cellphone service providers will have no say over what devices can access their networks. I'm curious to know the answers to the following questions:
Will the FCC invalidate existing exclusivity agreements with cellphone manufacturers? Obviously it wasn't Apple's decision to restrict the iPhone to just AT&T. Will the iPhone (and every other 'exclusive phone') be available in unlocked form for all carriers?
If exclusivity agreements are eliminated will cellphone service providers still be able to force you to pay for their "subsidized" phones even if you don't want to? Example - Will Verizon force all of their subscribers to continue to pay the same inflated monthly fee so that a "subsidize" Blackberry Storm is "free" while a non-preferred smartphone costs $500 to purchase?
Will cellphone providers be able to change you differently based on the type of data sent via a cellphone instead of just charging you based on bandwidth? What I am really asking is will they be able to selectively charge price-gouging rates for SMS when it effectively uses no bandwidth? Can cellphone providers ban VoIP over 3G and other cellphone frequencies? I hope the FCC specifically bans them from discriminating based on the type of data transmission.
I can go on and on, but hopefully the specific FCC rules will turn cellphone providers into the mindless provides of bandwidth pipe that they should be.
Is open to whining by partisans, no matter what it is or how good it is. Nothing new there.
Isn't this a blatant example of violating "net neutrality" that's been going on for awhile now? AT&T customers can use this site while comcast's can't (been on both sides of that fence and it wasn't 360 that made the decision for me).
I use it, but it bothers me that AT&T is engaging in payola to bring me that service.
My Babylon
screw their customers, because that allows for natural selection of successful businesses/management. What do I mean? I have this theory which I've yet to see fully dis-confirmed, that company's create their own competition. What do I mean by that? If you are a company, and you are providing good quality products or services, with good customer service, at reasonable rates, then (as long as you are of a large enough size to not just be clobbered by outspending by the competition), you could be a 'monopoly' and nobody would care. Put another way, if you are large enough, and your customers are happy, there is no opportunity for competitors to grow - you 'consume' that market.
But, when a business like an ISP does something like restricting people's internet access, it creates a vacuum of customer satisfaction, an opportunity for a competitor to step in, and grow.
Of course, when it comes to internet access, the problem is that, while it's not a true monopoly, the extremely limited number of cables that can be run to people's homes/businesses, and the limits of available spectrum for wireless services, means that there can never be more than maybe 10 ISPs in any area, and more importantly, it means there are high barriers to entry. Even though the market opportunity would otherwise be there for a new competitor in the ISP space, new competitors can't arise because it's impossible (or prohibitively expensive because of the extreme scarcity of spectrum or rights-of-way to run cable) for them to run cable or use spectrum.
Which is what this comes down to. While, as I stated above, in the general case of an open market where there are no artificial barriers to entry, I'd be very libertarian, but the capitalist/libertarian "model" simply fails when it comes to something like telecommunications, so there is a very reasonable argument for government regulation - because it is only by the power of the government that companies can run cable or use spectrum, so this IS NOT capitalism/a free market).
So, I have no problem telling people who panic about a 'socialist takeover of the Internet' that the Internet is not capitalistic to begin with. As long as the government isn't saying *what* data you are allowed to send over the Internet, or *who* you can send it to (as in the China/Iran model), I don't see government regulation as a threat to freedoms.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Excuse me, but did anyone else read that as 'Promote Net Neutrality, Yet Advocate Restrictions On What That Neutrality Should Consist Of' ?
Upon what legal basis does the FCC regulate the Internet? What law did Congress pass giving the FCC authority to regulate the Internet? Net neutrality is not something that should grow out of FCC regulations, it should result from a law passed by Congress.
I have some reservations about the Constitutionality of the Federal government regulating the Internet, but those are a matter of interpretation and their is an argument to made that the federal government does have the Constitutional authority to do so. However, even if one takes the position that the Federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate the Internet, that regulation should grow out of explicit laws passed by Congress. As far as I know, no new laws regarding regulating the Internet have been passed by Congress recently, therefore I fail to see how the FCC can suddenly decide to enforce net neutrality. Either there is a law calling for net neutrality or there isn't. If there is such a law, why haven't people been arguing on the basis of it demanding the FCC take action. If there isn't such a law, where does the FCC suddenly come up with the authority to implement net neutrality.
If the FCC can find the authority out of existing laws to enforce net neutrality, they can find the authority to regulate content in other ways that would not be so nice.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Will this apply to application restrictions?
While not phrased in terms of packets, Apple's prohibition of Google Voice and T-Mobile's ban of tethering apps are quite clearly designed to restrict traffic by application.
Is that people seem to be buying into your implication that the previous administration's FCC was somehow AGAINST Network Neutrality...
Are you just trying to be funny or do you honestly believe this? Inquiring minds want to know...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Doesn't anyone else see this as the FCC regulating the internet?
As an ISP, I call bullshit. In fact, the major carrier ILECs were even already paid to expand their network and they didn't.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
I wonder whether this covers measures designed to make internet usage inconvenient for applications competing with ones sold by wireless providers.
I'm glad the FCC chair put all that in the speech, but how will this be enforced? Who decides what is "legal" and "illegal" when filtering content. That's a huge hole ...and who can enforce those kinds of laws effectively enough to make it worth it? Seriously, "payola" in the music biz has been illegal for some time, but it's still rampant, and nobody on the enforcement side seems to care enough to be able to do anything about it.
My response to that speech... "nice sentiment, but does it really matter what you say?"
An idea could be to allow the user to set his own QoS. And what I mean by that is to set on the router different ports to have different priorities. I could put torrents on a port with tons of bandwidth and a huge ping. Or games on one with low ping and low throughput. IANANS
If I don't like the way a company is routing their traffic I can at least switch companies.
Consider yourself lucky.
The worst case for a business blocking/routing traffic is that someone else creates a competing ISP.
Only if there are a) enough potential customers in the geographic area, and b) enough potential customers that care.
Exactly. i pay 20 USD a month for 100 mbit fibre here in Stockholm. Yes its cheap, but i had to pay 2,000 USD to have the fibre put in. So i can stuff as much as i want into that pipe. The network provider should ensure that they can handle the load. They are selling 100 mbit, and so i should be able to use it. Now the next step is the QOS. Why not let me the consumer paying for the pipe choose my own QOS rules ? It would be a simple Web user interface where i assign priority levels based on protocol and/or IP addresses. Here in Sweden with most major network providers you have some control of this, but not at QOS levels yet. They should
So claims the AC. If you're gonna post something like this, have the cojones to sign your UID to it.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
It's like minding a retarded three-year with an affinity for eating animal droppings and one day he doesn't immediately run for the dog poo. Wait, did aliens abduct him and replace him with a clone almost indistinguishable but for the unexpected bit about not being a drooling window-licker and if so, can we make sure they never bring back the original?
I'm never going to be able to look at three-year-olds, retards, OR dog poo again without thinking of this!
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Both the IEEE and ACM do this with their journal archives. If you're ISP (e.g. a research university) has paid for access, then you get in for free. Otherwise you need to pay for membership.
(This gets very annoying when I visit family and can't get in. I'm not sure whether I think this is a good or bad thing, but it is annoying.)
Net neutrality regulations make sense in closed, monopolistic situations. But outside of small, rural markets, most of the U.S. offers a high level of competitive choice. Donâ(TM)t like Comcast cable internet? Switch to SpeakEasy, Astound or SBC, or look into satellite internet.
I currently live in a rural area where we have one ISP option: Time Warner Cable/Roadrunner. But I'm from the San Francisco bay area, where our options are SBC/Yahoo!/AT&T or Comcast. There used to be AOL, too, for broadband, except it turned out they were using SBC's DSL network and pretty much told their broadband customers to piss off. AT&T doesn't give a rat's ass if you call and threaten to switch to Comcast, and Comcast doesn't care if you threaten to switch to AT&T (this was reinforced by my microeconomics class a few semesters ago, that there's no real competition between ISPs). So where's this crap coming from in the Wired article? Are they on something, or do they know something the rest of us don't?
They're showing their corporatism honestly, which is depressing as I used to like Wired. Physical communications is a natural monopoly much like the interstate system, and I would very much prefer to see one utility only allowed to provide physical plant, and mandated to do so, and not permitted to sell any services over said plant.
You would then have service companies sell connectivity over the utilities' physical plant, paying the utility for the base connectivity.
Unfortunately what we have right now, is a hybrid situation, which to be perfectly honest, serves neither goal, and is almost an example of regulatory capture. Complete deregulation would be similar to what New York City looked like in the early days of power distribution (many lines from competitors going everywhere to all buildings), while we had full regulation attempted in the destruction of MA bell back in the day, but its been eroded and sidelined by both competitors/incumbents eeeking out sweetheart deals in order to compete (1996 Telecom Act), as well as the sibling Bell's continued lobbying specifically of both the FCC and their Republican friends in both the legislative and executive branches to relax their restrictions on service, while leaving their right of way easements intact.
Neither of the above options is very attractive, yet the status quo, and the far "liberal" annexation and seperation of service from infrastructure are just as hated by other camps. Honestly, I don't see the status quo lasting forever more (its too self serving at the moment on the primary carriers as evidenced by ISDN and DSL experience), yet I'm not sure what solution will ever be put forth, let alone passed, against a very large base of empowered and wealthy inertia seeking to maintain their own dominance.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
Those wires, which were largely built with federal funding by the way, cross state lines and distribute content across said state lines, that makes it an issue of regulating interstate commerce, one of the powers granted to the federal government in the constitution.
Basic civics folks.
A blog about stuff.
Vegetative Patients can Still Learn: http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/21/1649242/Vegetative-Patients-Can-Still-Learn?from=rss
but the Government ... Not so much.
The Government will fiddle with it until the internet is so broken, my old Bell 103 will be able to keep up with the fastest connection available in the US. This will work about as well as " No Child Left Behind" or "the War on Poverty" - at least we know the Social Security will be there when we need it.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
In a free market, the government should interfere no more or less than a referee interferes with a sport. The referee isn't there to determine the score or the plays. He is only there to provide an honest playing field. (This is basic economics that transcends left vs right, conservative vs. liberal.)
The principles Two new principles will join those original four and be formalized as official rules that will apply to both wired and wireless networks: * Consumers are entitled to access whatever lawful internet content they want. * Consumers are entitled to run whatever applications and services they want, subject to the needs of law enforcement. * Consumers can connect to networks whatever legal devices they want, so long as they do not harm them. * Consumers are entitled to competition between networks, applications, services and content providers. * Service providers are not allowed to discriminate between applications, services and content outside of reasonable network management. * Service providers must be transparent about the network management practices they use. From: CBC-CA Many thanks
if it was implemented so it saturated your allocated pipe most of the time, but differentiated your VoIP packets from your P2P ones
There's the key.
It needs to prioritize my packets over my other packets, not my VoIP over my neighbour's linux[aXXo].iso.torrent.
If I pay for $PIPE_SIZE, I should get $PIPE_SIZE to use on whatever I want, no matter what my neighbour is using his $PIPE_SIZE for.
(Okay, due to the ISP oversubscribing the line to stay in business, I'll settle for less than $PIPE_SIZE, but that should be done by giving each the same fraction of their individual pipe size, not hitting the bulk transfer users the hardest)
That's my opinion, at least.
operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.
as I indicated earlier -- it will pose a series of detailed questions on how the Internet openness principles should apply to mobile broadband.
The chairmanis in the process of determining what princples the FCC will be enforcing, and is questioning the extent to which mobile providers will be regulated. What I'm wondering is wether or not vendors (who also provide internet services, like ATT) will be required to open the phone market up by eliminating exclusive arrangemnets with phone manufacturers to sell locked phones.
I currently have an unlocked Nokia phone, but in order to get the access plan I wan't (pay as you go), I have to use one of a small collection of phones that ATT offers. My phone is technically capable of accessing the internet through ATT's network, so I should be able to buy any plan I want for my "non-harmful" device to access the internet.