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."
decides what is lawful?
Why, yes! I AM new here.
As usual McCain has no clue what he's going on about, surprise, surprise.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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.
Oh I love this part.
"McCain protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules. The wireless industry has "exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation," McCain said in the statement."
Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years.
There is a war going on for your mind.
This was not in the US, but a couple of years ago my ISP decided to throttle connections to MMOs, making these games practically unplayable. As I was tied into a 12 month contract which still had 8 months to go, this was extremely annoying. This is a practical and actual example which net neutrality laws would have prevented.
Why is FCC doing its press releases in a proprietary vendor lock in format? Haven't they heard of ODF? We should demand FCC and all government agencies to release their documents in a vendor neutral or vendor agnostic format.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Somebody hasn't been paying attention. The FCC is already in charge of regulating communications. They've had guidelines for Net Neutrality since 2005. Now they are just going to take those existing guidelines & make them laws so that they can fine companies for not following them. None of this would have happened if said ISPs weren't getting hard-ons over trying to screw-over their customers both big (Google) & small (me & you).
There is a war going on for your mind.
I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause. That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.
I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.
"Net neutrality" has nothing to do with freedom of speech. RTFA.
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
The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality" I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?
Except that our current politiscum like to take otherwise innocuous laws and twist them to their own advantage. Remember TARP? It was supposed to help keep the banks stable and encourage lending. Except that it has now been used to give money to businesses (and control their salaries), bail-out automakers and violate bond laws, and the banks are in even worse shape than before. If it works out to only prevent ISPs from blocking and/or throttling sites and services that they don't like (or don't pay them money), then I'm all for it. It's the large potential for abuse that concerns us libertarians, and makes us think that maybe we'd prefer Comcast to throttle our Bittorrent than for the government to block/throttle sites or services that they don't like (such as Wikileaks or Bittorrent).
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?
All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.
Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?
The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use. If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so. But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case. That is why we need net neutrality regulations.
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
I hate regulation. I'm so sick of Comcast regulating my Internet habits that I want my government to regulate Comcast. Net Neutrality is the least-regulation possible.
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.
Robert Mcdowell:
"Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said. "Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well."
I wish I could interview politicians, "You just made that shit up didn't you?"
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
But...but... businesses are the devil! We need to control them to protect the children. /sarcasm (If you really couldn't tell.)
I find it funny how the government takes a chunk of our freedom (taxes) to decide which businesses we support (sales) and then blames the business for raising prices to cover expenses (taxes.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is'. they want to CHANGE it, so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks. this is why you need net neutrality rules. net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways -> no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source, not the type and amount.
get a fucking brain and realize what's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&cid=29770311
Read radical news here
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
"and the banks are in even worse shape than before"
It boggles the mind that you just painted big banks as somehow a "victim" in this and got moderated informative.
The only big banks that are in bad shape are the ones who should have collapsed due to their own stupidity(Citigroup) or which acquired large businesses which should have collapsed due to their own stupidity(B of A buying Countrywide and Merrill Lynch). JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are in better shape than they have ever been. Goldman Sachs was a huge beneficiary of billions of dollars that came at the expense of tax payers, and they got it no strings attached(through AIG bailout or from the Fed).
If you are a big bank the Fed and Treasury have made it incredibly easy to make money. Big banks can borrow money from the fed at zero percent(a.k.a. free money) and are pouring it in to stocks and bonds which are, as a result, in another huge bubble and they are making huge profits. There are a lot of small banks in really bad shape but that is because they drank the koolaid the big banks handed them and no one is throwing them a life line for the most part. The price of this free money and making Goldman Sachs rich, they are destroying the dollar and wiping out the savings of everyone who is holding dollars instead of riding the new bubble on the stock market.
The last couple of years of rampant greed on Wall Street probably should have clued you in there is a problem with Libertarianism. You can certainly argue a factor in the recent collapse was due to government intervention but Wall Street, has for nearly 30 years, managed to completely eviscerate any regulation of their organized crime syndicate and its pretty obvious if you actually let Wall Street function with no oversight they would devour the world. The are a legal organized crime syndicate at this point, load sharking and usury being their specialty.
The only positive about implementing Libertarianism lately is you would have let AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GM, Chrysler, GE etc. end in Chapter 11. It would have have ended in the Greatest Depression ever seen but if you are going to have free market Capitalism either you let stupid companies fail or you eliminate moral hazard and without moral hazard Capitalism ends up completely broken which is where we sit today (regulating exec pay is a feeble attempt to restore moral hazard, doomed to fail).
Bottom line the problem isn't government regulating pay at failed companies, its that the government didn't let them end in Chapter 11.
@de_machina
Fictitious far right Republican response: Hell no, of course that's not right! That's Obama propaganda marketing! More evidence of him trying to destroy America from within the white house to turn us into a socialist state where the government decides how much money everybody can make, what we can eat and what we can watch! He needs to be stopped!
On the other hand, if the question was posed like so:
Fictitious far right Republican response: It doesn't matter, the government does not have the right to tell businesses how to operate! Businesses can get into any agreements that they want and the government has to stay out of it! If msbnc viewers don't like it they can change ISPs! Vote with your wallet, that's the American way!
Judges? Based on .. the law?
The problem with relying on judges is that you're more likely to get a ruling like Kelo than some noble defense of the Constitution. You know, Kelo, the one that declared, yes, governments can seize your private property and transfer it to other private citizens for "the public good".
There's a line in the Bible... "Put not your trust in princes"... that I think could easily apply to judges when it comes to your rights and the Constitution.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I used to see a heck of a lot more of that when there were easily a dozen or more local ISPs offering Internet access in my area. Once the telcos were allowed to cut them out of the picture, innovation has become non-existent.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
You seem to think it's the 50s all over again, not the 60s. And you're just as retarded as McCarthy was. Communism isn't a system of government! It's an economic system. Capitalism isn't a system of government! It's an economic system. Conflating the two results in the meaningless muddy thinking your post is full of.
You were dumb enough to bring up Nazism as an argument. I'll do you one better. Corporate control of government, also known as regulatory capture, has a name too. Mussolini himself named it fascism, in his own writings, and that's what it is. Guess what? That's what we're getting. The US is in no danger of becoming a Nazi state, any more than it's in danger of converting to a communist economy. It IS in danger of becoming a fascist state, and there you sit, advocating more corporate power.
The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created by mankind and the FCC is moving to pass regulations to keep it that way, because the CEO of SBC went on the record claiming Google was stealing from them. It was a blatant lie, a venal attempt to charge people at both ends more money for the exact same service. The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created and you DARE to use it to post polemics in favor of DESTROYING it?
You complete and utter fool. Stop typing. Stop talking. You don't deserve to use the Internet. You're so stupid you write "communism/socialism" as if they're the same thing. The Internet is about words, and you are a total failure at understanding words. Stop polluting the thoughts of people around you with your failure.
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.
"Leave things alone until the free market fucks it up" is not a good way to pursue public policy.
Example: Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities
Not to mention your bald assertions that this will lead to "government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer" make no sense at all. If you think that your net connection being subject to the whims of a corporation, with no recourse, isn't a problem, I can't help you to understand.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!