Slashdot Mirror
FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations
ceswiedler writes "The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality. The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their press release (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines." Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications." McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
This article was linked on the Drudge Report as "Julius [Caeser, implied] wants to regulate the internet."
I consider it, rather, a common carrier issue, akin to the situation we had with the railways 100 years ago - they were able to leverage their power over transit into other areas. You know, like how Microsoft used its OS dominance to destroy a rival in another field (web browsers). While all the networks are crying out that its a solution in need of a problem, the whole issue was raised because the telco's all started talking excitedly about how they could do all sorts of shady things, like double-dipping for bandwidth charges, that network neutrality would stop.
I'm a libertarian, and I support net neutrality, since oligopolies are market failures (see for example the price of cell phones in America over time). The actual implementation? Seems to actually have too many loopholes to me. They can, for example, tier service in order to deal with "net congestion". Hah.
I'm less concerned about the definition of Lawful than I am about the definition of Harmful. Law is at least ... a matter of law, even if I don't agree with it. How do courts determine whether something is or is not harmful to a network?
More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?
Sure, those "large companies" can (and did) cut their infrastructure investments... but those investments were paid by public money.
You are not legally allowed to dig your own cables -- Easements were given by the government to the incumbents.
So, tell me again how the government ISN'T involved?
Personally, I don't like to bail on something I have already paid for, but I don't need the Internet "24/7" that much. I can easily deal with "web by mail" and UUCP, or even data transfer via "truck of tapes" again. Strangely enough, if hackers go that route, AND we control the "good stuff" -- that is, the good pirated music/videos and technical information, the "Internet" will go down that path instead.
Which puts the attempted controls by the "other" cartel at risk. Basically, the content cartel wants a centralized Internet, if there is an Internet at all. The delivery cartel wants to put road-blocks into that centralized Internet, to maximize their profits. The hackers are willing to Balkanize the Internet, screwing both of the cartels.
The "end-users" really want the product the hackers produce.
You tell me how this plays out...
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I was one of those quintessential brats in the back seat of my parent's car mindlessly chanting the eternal question, "Are we there yet?". When addressing questions that incorporate government oversight of national infrastructures that are run by near monopolies there are no destination solutions. There are tentative, context sensitive solutions. The answer isn't unregulated free enterprise, nor is it heavy handed government control. IMHO the answer is the solution offered by mature democracies that have in place the institutions and laws that permit tentative solutions to be put in place then publicly monitored and honed.
What works in our modern, mature democracies are the checks and balances, supplemented by free speech, and, government and business oversight, that allow us to find a workable middle ground. I'm a liberal but I'm always glad for the common sense conservatives who try to limit government interference. Solving social problems by way of democratic institutions is a messy, contentious affair but, I think, modern history has amply demonstrated that the current crop of mature democracies are the best way to go and it's the somewhat efficient functioning of our institutions that allow us succeed more so than does any other form of government. We succeed because we have in place institutions that allow for open debate and venues to address things when they go wrong. We aren't there yet, but then we aren't ever gonna be so we might as well enjoy the ride given that we've got the best vehicle on the road.
just my loose change in a contentious debate
ideopath @ play
More important: Who checks the content for "lawful" or "not lawful"?
No one, unless they want to go to jail for violating state and federal wiretapping laws. If it's illegal for me to monitor my neighbor's phone calls to determine whether or not he's breaking the law it ought to be illegal for my ISP to monitor my traffic to determine it's legality.
At least in NYS, this may already be the case:
250.05 Eavesdropping: A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
From another section: "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law for the purposes of this section and sections 250.05, 250.10, 250.15, 250.20, 250.25, 250.30 and 250.35 of this article.
Looks like they can't do it in NYS without a court order. So how exactly does my ISP determine whether or not my traffic is "lawful"?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Let the Telcos choose (this does not apply to cable unfortunately)...
If they want to keep the protections that common carrier status affords them, then they must support net neutrality and remain essentially a dumb pipe. They used public land and massive tax incentives and subsidies to deploy the initial infrastructure (with the exception of FIOS, which I believe Verizon is eating the total cost, but still using public land, and in some cases tax breaks).
Or, if they do not want to implement neutrality in anyway, and they want to double dip on charging for bandwidth, discriminate on the types of traffic so that their own services do not have to compete etc, strip them of their protections, let every content company, every person who has been libeled, every politician who wants to shut down $x type of service/product/content and what not sue the telcos and ISPs into oblivion.
Seriously, the only reason telcos have protections is because they were just the intermediary carrying traffic between end points, and could not be held liable for what those entities did. But if they want to start manipulating the types of traffic and data, then they should be held liable for whatever that data contains.
For the record, I agree with the principles, I may not neccesarily agree with how the gov will implement them. Also, I did not vote, I was taught to vote my believes, not the lesser of 2 evils, and honestly, there is very little difference between them from my viewpoint.
How about this.. we have a public referendum on what the public wants. Sure the public can be swayed, but atleast the public as a whole will have some visibility in front of the politicians, as it is right now, the politicians only real view is of whatever the lobbying entities put in front of them.. he who has the money makes the rules I guess.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
And the courts stopped Comcast under existing laws, so why the need for new laws that will just cause problems in the future when something does start happening?
In the event that companies do start charging major sites to carry the traffic then yes it should be passed. Until then they are passing laws that will give more examples of the government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer.
I want more competition in the marketplace, I want a ISP(or series of ISP) that cater to gamers and delays P2P and videos during prime gaming hours.
Based on the summary, it's a completely wrong headed approach that leads to endlessly redefining terms. When this debate first started I thought it was a lot more clear: it's okay to prioritize based on protocols but it's not okay to prioritize based on source/destination.
Not sure why they're making it so complex now.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts
it has come to this point. because, you let those fucking republicans yelp on and on about 'letting businesses be'.
net neutrality is no different. its the freedom of internet being legalized. yet, same bastards oppose it with the same old barking.
Read radical news here
Or if you're dealing with pretty much any ISP in Canada. Around here, we have our choice of two, both of whom have various ridiculous policies. So if your choices are:
a) Provider A, with policy A
b) Provider B, with policy A
c) go without internet
Around here, the politicians would look at the setup and say, "See? The system is working. You have choice! Competition is driving innovation!"- and in fact have said pretty much exactly that when it comes to our cell phone charges, so why would it be any different when the exact* same companies are the ISP's?
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
Agreed. However, it seems that "endlessly redefining terms" is at the heart of what government and the judicial system do.
I still like your version better.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
No, they mustn't.
It specifies that they MUST NOT block lawful content, which simply implies that they MAY block unlawful content. But since it's not a lawful act for an ISP to police the content of packets to determine their lawfulness, then the implication means exactly nothing.
Kid-proof tablet..
IANAL but my reading of court cases found that internet traffic was not treated as on a "wire" like a phone. It was instead treated as a broadcast like a CB radio. The law therefore views internet traffic as being on "public channels" and therefore eavesdropping is perfectly legal. Employers, ISPs, government officials and Joe public can all legally eavesdrop on traffic. I'd love for someone to show I'm wrong though!