Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Make Move On Net Neutrality
GrApHiX42 writes "The FCC will announce on Thursday it plans to pursue a 'third way' forward in the fight for tough net neutrality rules, opening a new front in an ongoing legal battle that could come to define the commission under Chairman Julius Genachowski. A senior FCC official said Wednesday that the chairman 'will seek to restore the status quo as it existed' before a federal court ruled it lacked the authority to regulate broadband providers and set rules that mandate open Internet. The goal is to 'fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet,' the FCC official said."
Without net neutrality regulation, I fear that providers will have far too much power to censor content. In my area, there is only one choice for broadband: Comcast. My provider has already demonstrated a willingness to censor based on protocol and re-direct DNS lookup failures to their own search engine. I don't trust them at all to act in the best interest of the consumer when sites like Hulu and iTunes start directly competing against cable TV offerings for content.
Offer them a deal..
Common carrier status in exchange for net neutrality.
Personally, I fear this won't be "middle path" so much as "Third Position."
I think this is a much more admirable endeavor than being the nipple and potty mouth police. I always considered the FCC toothless moralists. I welcome our new internet overloads.
Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.
How 'bout we do something to increase competition, instead.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?
It's really the only way to have a free market in internet service at this point.
There's nothing illegal about circumventing the law. That's why it's called "circumventing", and not "breaking". The court is reminding the FCC that there are limits on their power, the FCC is working within those limits. Provided that you agree with the limits that the court gave the FCC, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Just make ISPs common carriers like the phone companies. Then the FCC can enforce the rules it wants.
Why don't they just make ISPs common carriers. A common carrier has to take anyone's traffic without favor or discrimination (as long as the customer can pay). The concept has served us very well for things like telephones and railways. I find it hard to understand why it doesn't automatically apply to ISPs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
"We need [to give the government the power to censor] to prevent [private] censorship."
.
There I fixed your comment for you.
.
Don't be too quick to bring the Trojan Horse into the city walls.
.
I don't like private or public censorship but I can tell you that private censorship is a lot easier to get away from and likely to be a lot shorter lived.
Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.
What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico. I see industry messing up on the exact same scale or bigger than the government messes up.
I'm not saying "Some companies have messed up so lets give it all over to the government," I'm just saying "Government takes over an industry" isn't as scary to me as it once was.
Or more precisely, 'bought and paid for' judges.
Like having the government take over the parts of the industry that are inherently monopolistic (ie. wires; the barrier to entry for that essentially amounts to putting your own set of wires around the entire country) and having them rent out those wires to ISPs, who would then become competitive?
It's really the only way to have a free market in internet service at this point.
Just a quick question: Who put all those wires there in the first place?
Just what we need, the government to regulate safety standards on off-shore oil rigs. Just what we need, the government to regulate the largest banks. Just what we need, the government to regulate environmental rules and protect wetlands.
You're fucking A-right.
Just what we need, for Comcast to turn the Internet into the Disney/TimeWarner Channel.
When the federal government was building the Internet, were you saying, "Just what we need, a fast open data network that anyone can connect to".
If you had waited for AT&T to build the Internet, you'd still be waiting. And I guarantee, that whatever they had built wouldn't have allowed for political blogs and bittorrent trackers and news aggregators and open source HTML standards. No YouTube. No Slashdot. And no teabaggers (well, I guess there would be some good points).
You are welcome on my lawn.
Um. No, the judges correctly noted that it was the FCC that was saying "fuck the law," by making up their own laws.
Do you really want federal judges who are going to allow federal agencies to do whatever they want, even when the law says they can't? That's scary stuff.
The FCC could just, you know, respect the fact that we live in a representative democracy and that as unelected bureaucrats that don't get to invent new laws restricting the free behavior of the people. The FCC could lobby Congress to write a law implementing what they want, instead of trying to tyrannically decide for us what they think is best.
I am mostly in favor of Net Neutrality (especially in cases where there's a de facto monopoly for a particular broadband provider). But I am not in favor of the FCC making up its own rules. I am in favor of elected representatives voting so we can hold them accountable in the end.
Actually, we don't have to guess at what the broadband carriers would have built had they been entrusted to create the Internet, because they already have done it.
It's called "cable television".
Those of you who are old enough can remember that when the internet was still Darpanet, the big telcos and media companies were telling us how "cable television" was going to revolutionize communications. It was going to be small-d democratic, with tons of opportunities for local programming and public access.
And what did we get? Spike. And fucking infomercials out the ass. And some very expensive programs (with commercials no less) and lots of reruns. For this, they were given the right to public lands and the right to gouge customers. And we got "pay television" where you have to pay to watch the baseball game you used to watch for free. And monopolies. Don't forget monopolies.
The "free market" and "competition" had their shot at the internet, and they gave you cable fucking television.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Reasonable regulation where it's due.
Not taking over entire industries, though.
Competition is what drives quality of product in other segments of the economy.
There is not sufficient competition in internet service though, even with the available choices of dialup, DSL, cable, fios in some locations, several cellphone companies, satellite and terrestrial wireless.
With all those choices, why isn't competition driving prices down and quality up, like in other industries?
My guess is that there is already too much government regulation that stifles competition.
Oh, and "teabaggers?"
Why the homophobic language?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Guess again. The utilities run the wires and are responsible for them. When wires get blown down in a storm, how many 'local government' trucks do you see out there fixing them?
The problem the FCC had wasn't that the law said they can't enforce net neutrality.
It's that the law says the FCC can't write new laws, and this was, in effect, a new law. From the ruling:
The FCC must be able to point where in a law, passed by Congress, they have the authority to do this. They failed to do so. They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.
Through the Communications Act of 1934 as amended over the decades Congress has given the Commission express and expansive authority to regulate common carrier services, including landline telephony; radio transmissions, including broadcast television, radio, and cellular telephony; and “cable services,” including cable television. In this case, the Commission does not claim that Congress has given it express authority to regulate Comcast’s Internet service. Indeed, in its still-binding 2002 Cable Modem Order, the Commission ruled that cable Internet service is neither a “telecommunications service” covered by Title II of the Communications Act nor a “cable service” covered by Title VI. The Commission therefore rests its assertion of authority over Comcast’s network management practices on the broad language of section 4(i) of the Act [which the courts have come to call ancillary jurisdiction] [citations omitted]
Yes, the DC Cir. ruled that the FCC didn't have ancillary jurisdiction. But way up at the top of the opinion is the bit quoted above, where the court recognizes that this issue is raised because the FCC determined, in a still binding order, that internet service was not a telecom service, which it can regulate under title II, common carriage.
If the FCC determines that internet access is a telecom service - which they have the authority to do - then it can enforce net neutrality using its normal common carriage authority. No new laws from Congress required.
> Just a quick question: Who paid for/subsidized those wires?
You are getting close to the truth of the matter. Yes the telcos paid to put in the wires but it was subsidized in a way. It was part of a deal where AT&T would run wires to MOST[1] of the country in exchange for a monopoly.
So every time this topic comes up I remind people of the only long term solution that would actually work and get ignored. Break up the phone companies one more time, this time along the correct lines. Company A gets the monopoly, the local loops and the COs and sells access at rates set by the government. Company B puts dialtone, IP or video on the wire along with as many other companies who want to compete. And do it for the cable companies as well, they have had enough time extracting monopoly rents they can be split along the same lines of the natural monopoly vs the value added services.
But of course what we get is the government will essentially nationalize the Internet. Service will go to hell if you can even get past the political cleansing. And with Big Media having achieved regulatory capture decades ago the p2p scene will be toast.
[1] Even then they carved out a lot of really rural areas that they wouldn't serve, which is why there are small local phone companies that have been around for a really long time. But all are way out in flyover country where 'real' people never go and thus are ignored.
Democrat delenda est
I agree with the basic principle, but you're overlooking the fact that the telecom industry is NOT a free market and hasn't been for over 100 years. They have been granted monopoly status by government action. That's exactly the opposite of a free market. Cable TV has never been a free market. There is no competition that is legally allowed to come in and fight back. The only hope of any competition is wireless, but they can't compete with the raw speed a wired line can. And the entrenched monopolies can just lower prices and push speeds up to force new competition out of business. With protected monopoly profits no less.
In this industry, there is no freedom, no free market. Even removing the laws preventing competition isn't enough in this case. The existing companies also got huge subsidies and tax breaks to pay for the networks. Can you think of a business plan that can compete with that?
who's gonna pay for it? the company that spilled it
And they will, which will in turn decrease their profit margins which will be unacceptable for shareholders. That, along with the "decrease" in oil availability because of the spill will result in higher gas prices for a while.
With large scale problems such as this, we can't be blind for the fact of who really foots the bill. Regardless of if governments or corporations front the money, you and I always end up providing the cash.
Are you retarded? The FCC just "determines" Internet Access is a telecom service so it can regulate it. Seriously?
Under your logic perhaps the FDA should declare the Internet a drug so it can regulate it.
Heck it is the Information Superhighway, perhaps we should get someone from our local law enforcement community to regulate it.
Perhaps we should contact NASA and have them draft an exploratory counsel given it is often referred to as cyberSPACE.
I hate many things about ISPs, but I hate the idea of government bureaucrats deciding what is best for me even more.
Perhaps I should remind you that we live in a Democratic Republic where only elected representatives are to make the laws, not government agencies. And for your information that is a very good thing.
Respect the Constitution
Perhaps I should remind you that we live in a Democratic Republic where only elected representatives are to make the laws, not government agencies.
Allow me to introduce you to administrative law. I think you'll get a real kick out of agency rulemaking.
> AT&T put in all the miles of fiber we now have back in the 40's?
Ok, you asked for it. So sit right down and lemme tell ya a tale.
Back in the 90's there were first stirrings of the sort of reform I am talking about. They didn't split em but they did force the telcos to allow competition of a sort. Remember the CLECs? There was a lot wrong in how that scheme was setup, with the incumbent carrier retaining an unhealthy advantage but it was a start and it scared the piss out of the telcos. So they got their pet congressman (Rep Billy Tauzin R-LA in fact but R-BellSouth in reality) to knife the CLECs. This set off a chain reaction that led killed off the CLECs, and most small ISPs because they had become CLECs to get access to low enough rates to stay in the game; that in turn killed the equipment makers that depended on them, i.e. Lucent, Nortel, et al. The contagion spread until it became known as the .bomb.
Perhaps you read about that back in 2000 if you were the sort to read business pages. The rest of the country found out in 2001 after the Presidential race was over with, a major market meltdown didn't fit the media's narrative of that race you see; the story of the Clinton economic miracle that we could keep going if we elected Algore.
While the threat was solved for now, the telcos were determined a shift in their political fortunes wouldn't see a rebirth of competition. So while they had the power they used it. They bought themselves a law that would exempt any new fiber investment from being subject to being opened to competition. They told us that without that promise we would all be stuck on dialup and become uncompetitive in the world economy. And so Congress gave them what they wanted and then some, heck they even threw direct cash at em! And they are slowly rolling out fiber.... and rolling up the copper as they go. So they just refreshed the monopoly. Who cares what it cost, that gets passed to the end customer anyway.
Note that the government is just as liable for the Kaboom! as the telcos. So giving any of them more power is a bad idea.
Democrat delenda est
Considering that the FCC can open up WiMax, and initiatives such as O3b may demonstrate that MEO satellite systems can offer nearly fiber speeds to third world nations, aren't the TelCo's just slitting their own throats? If companies like Google, ones that make more money by increasing the number of people who can access the internet and there services, are willing and able to offer free or nearly free internet access via low latency MEO satellite constellations and other radio transmission methods. why would agencies such as the FCC want to stop them?
Yeah, nice try. The last time telcos had to worry about the meddling regulators was after the 1996 law passed. I remember...there was a period of about 5 years where the ILECs stumbled because they didn't know what hit them. There was budding competition, plenty of CLECs, that's when cable got in the broadband and telephony business. ILECs were fined for delaying facilities and repair orders for CLEC customers. You could get dial tone or DSL from a dozen competing providers.
Eventually, the ILECs regrouped, merged their way back to consolidation and monopoly status, put their competitors out of business with a combination of downright dirty tricks like delaying orders or claiming lack of facilities and predatory pricing....and what little complaints there were got silenced by their well paid lobbyists.
Revising history to conform to an idealogy is fun...but that doesn't mean it's the truth.
You think Tauzin or Dingell knew what they were doing? And Crazy "My Tubes" Eddie knew anything past his bottom line? Someone has to represent the public interest....clearly industry leaders and elected officials are not up to the task....the FCC needs to be strengthened and chartered with regulating all facets of "connectivity" before India and China eat our lunch. Oh wait, they already are.
Just where did I mention any company besides AT&T? That was the one company mentioned in the post I replied to, and they got their monopoly on phone service lines several decades ago.
I realize the games that have been played since then, but that isn't the point. If you're going to mention one specific company as an example then make it something relevant, something current. AT&Ts original lines, as well as their original equipment, are now basically irrelevant. Land(twisted pair copper) lines are dying, although there will be large parts of rural America that will be stuck using them for quite a few years. My in-laws didn't even get a party line until about 10 years ago.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
They can't make up a new law on their own. It's basically that simple.
If only that were true. All government agencies legislate through creating rules. Many of the freedoms we have lost have come about through bureaucratic rules.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
Provided that you agree with the limits that the court gave the FCC, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Actually, unless the GP seized power in a coup none of us were aware of, their agreement or disagreement with the court's decision (and underlying law) is immaterial. The court explicitly noted that the FCC is perfectly within its rights to determine ISPs are subject to title II and regulate accordingly, thus bringing into action net neutrality.
Which is what they should have been all along: common carriers of data, as opposed to voice. It was always a byzantine argument that excluded ISPs from title II in the first place ... one that is long overdue in being reversed.
To the telcos: be careful what you wish for (courts striking down net neutrality). You just might get what you wish for (provision struck down under title I, and -- oops -- regulated even more effectively under title II).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I've often thought how thankful I am that the spark of human inter-connectivity came from academia and government rather than private industry. It's clear now, and will become more clear in the coming century, how we dodged a bullet by making the internet an open medium.