If the FCC Had Regulated the Internet From the Start

In the spirit of (but with a different approach than) last week's post "Is Net Neutrality Really Needed?", an anonymous reader writes with this "counterfactual history of the internet, but one that is all too plausible. Unfortunately, I can see this happening under the new 'Net Neutrality.'"

Comments

Pure Fantasy

[Jane Q. Public]

If the internet had been regulated under Title II in the first place, as it should have, giving ISPs and upstream providers "common carrier" status, we would not have the mess we have now.

Deep packet inspection would be illegal "interception" of content, making tiered or discriminatory service impossible. The government would explicitly need a warrant to snoop. Etc.

It might not be a perfect solution, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Sometimes regulation is not evil.

Re:Pure Fantasy

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have also prevented smaller regional ISPs from being able to participate in the market, as the only businesses with the immense legal resources to comply as common carrier were...wait for it...the Telcos.

So you'd have been getting your crappy dialup only from AT&T, BellSouth, PacBell, none of whom care about your internet connection like your ISP did, and all of whom have shown a willingness to collude against the consumer.

Common carrier means a lot more, practically speaking, than you think it does.

As if it knew you were advocating handing an advantage to the telcos, my Captcha word was: "Tyranny"

Re:Pure Fantasy

[abarrow]

Yeah, and there's a good chance we would have ended up like some countries that got widespread Internet after the Telcos figured it out, like South Africa. Telekom hired a bunch of consultants from SBC who showed up and told them they had to meter Internet usage.

Re:Pure Fantasy

[JWW]

They have the power to do common carrier NOW. Notice that that is not what they are doing.

The FCC does not want to make the Internet common carrier.

They are violating a court decision doing regulation the way they are doing it.

It is very telling as to what the FCC is more interested in based on how they are going about this.

I think "fairness" is a big motivator for them, but they're not concerned about packet fairness, I think they're more concerned about content fairness. Thats a path I don't want to see them take.

Re:Pure Fantasy

[betterunixthanunix]

I think "fairness" is a big motivator for them, but they're not concerned about packet fairness, I think they're more concerned about content fairness.

The fact that everyone is so focused on "content" shows that the suits still do not really understand the Internet, or perhaps they do understand it but they do not like what it means. This is not about "content;" the Internet is not just another broadcasting system. Websites are not just "channels" that you use a web browser to "tune in" to.

Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the FCC does not see things this way...

Re:Pure Fantasy

[michael_cain]

Absolutely correct. The debate is not about whether internet access service should be regulated, but how to regulate it. For various reasons, the FCC decided initially that it would be regulated as an "information service" rather than as a "communication service." I was involved in the industry at the time, and while I understood the reasons why the FCC made that choice, I argued that this would be a serious mistake in the long term.

When I had the opportunity to discuss matters with senior management, I advised them that they should act as if there were basic internet access and separate information services, even though they were not required to. I argued that their choice was to behave as if basic internet access (here's your IP address, and everyone gets honest best-effort packet delivery service) were a communication service, or someday they would have that behavior imposed on them by the government. And if they waited until the behavior was imposed from the outside, it would be much more painful than doing it from the beginning. I wasn't making a statement about whether biased traffic shaping was good or bad; I was simply predicting what would happen.

For a lot of years the big ISPs behaved in a manner that kept the basic communication service intact. Only in the last few years have they become egregious about traffic shaping and blocking. And sure enough, here comes the regulation. And it's going to be painful, and it's going to be ugly, but it is inevitable that the big ISPs will be required to behave as if internet access is a basic communication service.

Re:Pure Fantasy

[scalarscience]

Every time I've seen the 'suits' attempt to create 'channels' in an attempt to market something on top of a layer of tech, the technology underneath it moves so quickly that any attempt at a static, controlled form of it winds up being obsolesced rather quickly. Remember having screensavers with feeds pre-rss as if we'd all been waiting for CNN to enter every idle second we had? And apps you could run at the top of your screen (which were early forms of spyware in some cases, logging basic user metrics before anyone care about such things.)

Re:Pure Fantasy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think "fairness" is a big motivator for them, but they're not concerned about packet fairness, I think they're more concerned about content fairness.

The fact that everyone is so focused on "content" shows that the suits still do not really understand the Internet, or perhaps they do understand it but they do not like what it means. This is not about "content;" the Internet is not just another broadcasting system. Websites are not just "channels" that you use a web browser to "tune in" to.

Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the FCC does not see things this way...

Bingo.

"Net neutrality" is an attempt at turning the internet into just that: web sites being channels you tune in to. Because the content providers don't like a free-for-all - they want barriers to entry into the content-providing market. The internet has - up until now - dramatically reduced the barriers to entry into the content market. Movie studios, record labels, old-school newspapers - they've all had their apple cart upset by the internet.

Oh, yeah, and the AD AGENCIES that make billions and billions of dollars off those industries - even on the internet. ESPECIALLY on the internet (gee, I wonder who THAT could be?)

But the world's best barriers to entry into any market are thousands of pages of government regulations - most of them written by lobbyists and lawyers from large corporations already in the market. The "net neutrality" rules have been written by the content providers, with a little help from the ISPs. Oh yeah, that's a combination with the best interests of the consumer at heart.

And guess which political party the content providers overwhelmingly donate to?

And guess who they are? They include RIAA and MPAA.

Who are the useful idiots on the "net neutrality" debate, now?

Re:Pure Fantasy

[Reality Master 101]

I'm a free marketer, but yes, sometimes regulation is not evil. Proof? Easy. Child labor laws and its sibling, compulsory education. We could also talk about paying poor miners in scrip and forcing them to buy goods at inflated pricing at Company Stores.

Re:Pure Fantasy

[Reality Master 101]

And by the way, just to answer your absurd assertion about child labor, do you know why Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol? It was because of what he witnessed with his own eyes, and he wanted to change the world. From Wikipedia (this article is well referenced, if you don't trust Wikipedia):

Dickens was keenly touched by the lot of poor children in the middle decades of the 19th century. In early 1843, he toured the Cornish tin mines where he saw children working in appalling conditions. The suffering he witnessed there was reinforced by a visit to the Field Lane Ragged School, one of several London schools set up for the education of the capital's half-starved, illiterate street children.[11] Inspired by the February 1843 parliamentary report exposing the effects of the Industrial Revolution upon poor children called Second Report of the Children's Employment Commission, Dickens planned in May 1843 to publish an inexpensive political pamphlet tentatively titled, "An Appeal to the People of England, on behalf of the Poor Man's Child" but changed his mind, deferring the pamphlet's production until the end of the year.[12] He wrote to Dr. Southwood Smith, one of four commissioners responsible for the Second Report, about his change in plans: "[Y]ou will certainly feel that a Sledge hammer has come down with twenty times the force – twenty thousand times the force – I could exert by following out my first idea." The pamphlet would become A Christmas Carol.[13]

To imply that children never suffered and that child labor laws and education laws weren't needed is just ignorance of the highest order.

Re:Pure Fantasy

[smi.james.th]

That particular decision is STILL a problem here in South Africa to this day. As an example: I'm paying 600 ZAR per month at the moment for internet, (the equivalent of 90 US$) it's supposed to be 1Mbps, but usually during the day it's the equivalent speed of a 384k line, and to top it all off, I have an 8GB cap, that's all the traffic I'm allowed in the month, if I exceed it I get cut off and I have to pay more. With a family of 6, that 8GB sometimes goes fairly quickly...

BTW, the local parastatal telecom unit is called "Telkom". There have in recent years come along some competitors, but at present they're even worse.

Not so realistic

[Pharmboy]

Ok, its an interesting read, but not every realistic. As draconian and fascist as the US govt has become over the last 10 years, many of the ideas in the article simply wouldn't fly. Not everyone in the US is a sheeple. Again, interesting, but there is no way in hell that it could have happened remotely as they stated in the article.

Re:Not so realistic

[LordKronos]

Ok, its an interesting read

Then you're giving it more credit then I would. I didn't find it the slightest bit interesting. As I read it, I was thinking how unrealistic it was, until I got to the section about the FCC not approving the internet because it's beta software, etc. At that point I said 'this is stupid", read a couple more paragraphs, got to the first mention of Microsoft Bob, and promptly closed the page. The level of absurdity in the article is so high, it sounds like it was FUD written by Comcast to rally people against net neutrality.

Re:Not so realistic

[Goody]

And what's worse is the conservative media and blogosphere will cite this article and quote it and their viewers will eat it up and be regurgitating it everywhere. It's quite unrealistic and is really just a lame attempt at comedy. TCP/IP and the Internet were in use in other countries before 1993 when the article's timeline starts. If the FCC would had done any kind of blatantly bad regulation, the Internet would have merely evolved outside of the US. The fact is the FCC didn't regulate it, and net neutrality (however currently defective/insufficient) doesn't come close to any sort of heavy-handed regulation. But that doesn't support the right wing narrative of an out of control fascist state.

Re:Not so realistic

[WWWWolf]

got to the first mention of Microsoft Bob, and promptly closed the page. The level of absurdity in the article is so high,

Oh, yeah. Ridiculous noob mistakes like this undermine the credibility of the article. The service was actually called The Microsoft Network (MSN). Urrrgh. (Yes, I actually remember one prominent Microsoft supporter hyping how much better MSN was compared to the Internet and how it was not at all a mistake for Microsoft to put Internet connection tools to Windows 95, because obviously everyone would be using MSN, the technically superior network built right into Windows.)

Re:Not so realistic

[diamondmagic]

Perhaps you've missed out on the federal takeover of student loans, much of the banking sector (by force!), the TSA, the auto industry, health insurance. Sure we've seen the protests (alright maybe not against obscure things like student loans though that was in Obamacare so I guess it counts), but that didn't change anything. Have you read any of the writings of the FCC chair? The FCC will grab whatever powers it doesn't have and use them for whatever purpose it likes, sheeple or not. The only thing really stopping them at this point is the threat of congressional review, and getting dragged in front of angry committee chairs, next term.

Re:Not so realistic

[runningduck]

Oddly enough the government did regulate the Internet in the early years. It wasn't until the early '90s that commercial activity was allowed on the Internet. Prior to that only academic and research entities were allowed. It could be argued that the early restrictive regulations of the Internet created an incubation environment that allowed the Internet to mature and surpass the offerings by commercial providers such as CompuServe and AOL.

That works both ways Slate...

[Shadow of Eternity]

"In late 2010 the last act of the democratic congress was to pass a massive legislative coup giving the FCC all the authority it required to enforce Net Neutrality and a mandate to bring america's infrastructure up to par with the rest of the first world.

Over the next two years the FCC rolled out a series of reforms which led to the end of the stagnation and abuses of the monopolies and duopolies in charge of access to the internet in america, began a campaign to run fiber straight to the home in all major american cities creating a massive number of public works jobs, and singlehandedly raised speeds, lowered prices, and improved the quality of american internet connectivity."

See? I can play the "lets make up a fantasy scenario that perfectly supports my position" game too.

The article veers into TLDR land,

[Compaqt]

but basically it's a fairy tale about if the FCC had started regulating interstate electronic communications in 1993, and how it would have mandated Minitel compatibility for electronic devices.

It's amazing how many people have gotten taken in with the misconception that the FCC is "taking over" the Internet. The simplest analogy is toll roads: they're built by private companies, but the government doesn't allow the operators to favor or ban traffic of competing contractors (or anyone else, for that matter).

Re:The article veers into TLDR land,

[hedwards]

You must not have gotten the memo. Anytime that a government agency does something which might theoretically affect a business in some indirect, but negative, way, it's an unwarranted abuse of government power and an example of Nazism, Fascism and probably Socialism.

Not to mention that it makes Jesus cry, kills puppies and forces ceiling cat to urinate from on high.

Re:The article veers into TLDR land,

[khallow]

You must not have gotten the memo. Anytime that a government agency does something which might theoretically affect a business in some indirect, but negative, way, it's an unwarranted abuse of government power and an example of Nazism, Fascism and probably Socialism.

Of course, the scaremongers are helped quite a bit by the fact that the theory is so often true in practice. For "exhibit A" consider the security apparatus. Because they could, the Department of Homeland Security took over airport security in the US and has everyone who flies on a commercial plane doing all sorts of humiliating things. For "exhibit B" consider the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution and how it's been used over the past century or so to justify any regulation of any commerce (be it interstate commerce or not). A couple good examples of how this clause has been abused are the War on Drugs and the recent banning of the incandescent lightbulb (I believe the law takes effect in 2012). For "exhibit C", the Social Security number was explicitly promised not to be a national ID, but things turned out otherwise. For "exhibit D", consider the intelligence and law enforcement agencies over the past 90 or so years and the many illegal things that they've done.

Even when the intent is to be business-friendly, there are frequently unintended consequences. Sure the original story was hysterical and unrealistic, but there is precedent for government action being more harmful than expected.

Re:The article veers into TLDR land,

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is very valid, but you're missing something. All of your exhibits of regulatory over-reach or worse have one thing in common: some corporation/cartel/sociopaths profit big time by each of them--the War on Drugs in particular, but also the whole mess with the TSA which of course relieved airlines of three things: the cost of security implementation (another tax giveaway), the negative publicity from the crap the TSA always pulls, and the responsibility when something actually goes wrong. Great deal--if you're an airline.

Net Neutrality, done correctly and in the fashion that it's meant as opposed to the scaremongering going on here, would probably hurt the profits of the big telcos and that's why of all those things it's in the crosshairs. It also provides the best hope for small businesses to actually compete in the world, which of course is another negative for the big monopolies and duopolies. Come to think of it, they're always trotting out small businesses as the big job creators when it's time to argue for tax cuts for the rich, but they totally ignore them or even hurt them when it suits their purpose. Funny how that works...

Regulation by itself is not always bad, but regulation where the regulators are in bed with those being regulated, which is pretty much what we have in the US now, is almost always bad. The only thing worse is usually no regulation at all, which of course is the next logical argument spewing forth from those in the bed and the useful idiots who work against their own interests by following them.

Re:The article veers into TLDR land,

[sstamps]

There is also precedent for private action being much more harmful than expected.

1) Standard Oil cartel price-fixing
2) Ma Bell before the breakup (pretty much a government-backed, yet *private* monopoly -- very similar to many ISPs in the US right now).
3) The entire broadband industry in the 90s, taking hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money, mandated to deliver state-of-the-art broadband across the US, but instead giving us ISDN and DSL.
4) Microsoft monopoly. Whether you consider the merits of the "browser wars" worthy, the fact is that they have abused their position with control of the OS to drive competing application producers out of the market.

The question boils down to which is the lesser of two evils. At least with the government, there is someone charged with caring about the consumer. In industry, there are no consumer advocates.

Re:The article veers into TLDR land,

[khallow]

What percentage of the time and to what extent? In relation to how much quazi-Nazism, quazi-Fascism, and probably quazi-Socialism we'd see by people, business, gangs, etc if the government didn't take any action? Big examples are great to understand the possible scope, but it helps to also understand that the government is an ongoing human organization, not some theory to be disproven. The important thing is to figure out how to improve things, not just scaremonger about how horrible things could be.

So we need to come with actual numbers? How about 300 million deaths in the 20th Century or about 10% of all deaths globally?

The War on Drugs has been good for business. It means street drug prices remain high. It also means more prison construction, rehabilitation centers, etc. Besides, the War on Drugs was a rather direct method intended to effect business. As for the incandescent lightbulb, you're right that it's negative.

The War on Drugs has been good for some businesses. It's kept somewhere around a million people out of the labor force, which isn't good for business. It's jailed people who could have been productive members of society and imposed a costly burden on society.

Which is entirely the fault of (a) US States who ignored the explicit law that it wasn't to be used as a national ID and (b) businesses who did the same thing. Either way, I don't see how the existence of a national ID is theoretical bad for business in any way.

The example is a demonstration that a government agency did something that it had earlier promised not to do. This particular one didn't hurt businesses, but there are other such things that do.

90 or so? Try 10000+ years.

And yet I remain correct despite your "more jaded than thou" act.

Yet, government by the people allows the people some control to correct those abuses by having unity to combat that who would ignore their duty.

It also allows "the people" to create abuses so that those who chose to ignore their duty can profit thereby.

To point at government instead of the people who abuse power misses the point and does nothing to fix anything.

Unless the government is the problem instead of the people.

Surprised it *DIDN'T* Happen

[krygny]

While I don't agree with some of the scenarios in the article (a bit simplistic), I have always been astonished at the laissez-faire approach the Federal Government has always had toward the internet and the WWW. I can only explain it by their ineptitude. Not their libertarian philosophy. As a whole, the Government really never "got it" nor understood the potential until it was too late. Now that it's too late, their hoping that it's not too late. Typical.

Re:Surprised it *DIDN'T* Happen

[rokkaku]

If you by "laissez-faire approach", you mean, "created it from scratch with millions in DARPA, and then NSF, funding," then, yeah. And, if you'll remember, there were pretty strict content restrictions on the NSFnet. Thank goodness some small part of the government "got it" and fostered the Internet, or the scenario outlined in the (really crappy) Slate article might've been more likely.

We're Lucky It Exists At All ...

[stevesh6]

And if someone in a position to do so had gone before Congress in 1990 and testified that in ten years or less, every 12-year-old in the country could have a box in his bedroom which would provide him with 24/7 access to unlimited, free hard-core pornography, the Internet would have been smothered in its crib. Politicians aren't the people to be making these decisions.

Re:We're Lucky It Exists At All ...

[10101001 10101001]

And if someone in a position to do so had gone before Congress in 1990 and testified that in ten years or less, every 12-year-old in the country could have a box in his bedroom which would provide him with 24/7 access to unlimited, free hard-core pornography, the Internet would have been smothered in its crib.

They failed trying to do just that twice in the 90s. What finally was passed as constitutional was that if you got federal funds in the form of E-Rate discounts (for schools and libraries), you had to install filtering software. The fact that commercial interests in the internet started in 1992 but the CDA didn't pass until 1996 (under a Republican controlled Congress and a moderate Democrat President) makes it a bit unclear just what would have happened. One thing to note is that during the 90s, most children didn't have access to computers except through schools and libraries. Those who did could have potentially connected to hardcore porn BBSs since the 80s, so it's not like there wasn't at least some room to consider the lack of federal legislation on BBSs as a sign of something.

Politicians aren't the people to be making these decisions.

Or voters for that matter, apparently. It's apparently only through judges that the sanity of the Constitution was upheld. So, the FCC can't do unconstitutional things (like, say, banning all AOL chats) no matter how much people wish they do otherwise (but enough people and politicians could change the Constitution to make it legal), so the whole fear of the FCC trying to club the pre-internet to death is very much a moot point. Obsessive prudes using children as an excuse in the past simply hasn't worked nearly that sucessfully.

The whole issue is one gigantic strawman.

[Senes]

This isn't about regulating the internet, it's about preventing private regulation; if you hate people telling you what you can and cannot do then you should support preventing ISPs from being able to decide how your connection can be used.

As long as people are tied to their service providers then they're at the provider's mercy unless it is illegal to impose such controls. "Regulating the internet" would be telling users what to do; that's exactly what would happen if ISPs could shape traffic and they wouldn't have to release you from your contract.

Change (for the worse) happens by degrees

[RogueWarrior65]

Most people don't realize that draconian rules and totalitarian environments don't happen overnight. They happen over several years of incremental changes that fly below the radar until there comes a point when people wake up and cry "How the hell did this happen?!?!" What's worse is that these incremental measures are instituted "for our own good" and those who place a higher value on emotional reasons for doing things rather than the practicality of the measures and blindly accept these measures. They rarely see the unintended consequences of a policy. Net Neutrality sounds like a good idea: Cool, all traffic will be equal! My ISP won't be allowed to filter my torrent downloads!! WOOT!! Yeah, um, no. Your ISP is going to scale back or cancel any rollout of faster service or they will lower everyone's speeds or they will charge everyone more money. The targets of government regulation never bend over and take it up the ass. They always pass on the ass-f*cking to someone lower in the food chain.

Re:Change (for the worse) happens by degrees

[misexistentialist]

Your ISP is going to scale back or cancel any rollout of faster service or they will lower everyone's speeds or they will charge everyone more money.

So be it. Because they would do all those things anyway out of "responsibility to the shareholders", unless there is more regulation dictating speed and price. Which is distasteful, but how else can you respond to monopolies?

Re:Change (for the worse) happens by degrees

[Urkki]

So you're saying... if ISPs were allowed to freely limit the most bandwidth-intensive uses as they please, then they'd be able to invest in infrastructure to provide more bandwidth for the... uses that don't use a lot of bandwidth, and won't be paying anything extra if they get more bandwidth?

Also, government regulation doesn't change the inherent need of a company to maximize their profits, even if it means "ass-f*cking" their customers. But regulations can make it go in less deep, especially if competition isn't up to the task (eg. duopoly/monopoly situation).

Something's not quite right here...

[Trinn]

What's up with the anti-NN articles lately? Smells of astroturf if you ask me, to be honest, though I'm wondering how it got past firehose stuff. This article is just the usual FUD approach, I thought slashdot was a bit more capable of recognizing such. The article boils down to some simple appeals to partisanship, fear of being on the "losing side" (when we all are unless you happen to be one of the F500 CEOs or something else equally silly), fear of oppressive government control / fear of the government 'breaking' the internet (the Order and Report is actually very specific and focuses merely on anti-competitive cartel/monopoly tactics)...

The cycle of regulation

[FourthAge]

On Slashdot it's mostly imagined that regulation is a wholly good thing, at least in principle: the government siding with the people against the corporations.

Any reminder of the problems that can be caused by regulation is therefore worthwhile.

This is not to say that regulation is a wholly bad thing, either. But it can easily make things worse, by closing out competition, for example.

Wherever you see corporations colluding against the public, you may be tempted to suggest regulation as the solution. If so, don't be surprised to discover that their industry is already heavily regulated, and (perversely) regulation is exactly what is enabling the collusion.

And what is the inevitable solution to that collusion? Why, more regulation, of course. The existing regulation must be inadequate, so we need more of it.

In other words, we have only a hammer, so every problem must be a nail. There is a cycle here, and it's not the virtuous sort.

So, if you wish to call for regulation, you should consider the regulation that's already in place. Why is it inadequate? And how is your proposal immunised against the same problems? Because you will not be the first person to suggest regulation - those who came before you had similar ideals, and despite their good intentions, they created the current mess.

Re:The cycle of regulation

[MysteriousPreacher]

I consider the calls for patent and copyright reform to be against regulation, or least arguments for regulation that primarily benefits people - not corporate interests. However, yes - regulation is like law. Any law or regulation should present a benefit to the general public that demonstrably out-weigh the consequences of a reduction in liberties. There must also be accountability. Not always easy to gauge - and I sure as hell don't trust state bodies to be intrinsically benevolent or in any way competent.

The article itself is pretty unrealistic. I was expecting at some point to see Xenu returning from his space prison to require all email to authenticated and digitally signed.

Re:The cycle of regulation

[hercubus]

So, if you wish to call for regulation, you should consider the regulation that's already in place. Why is it inadequate? And how is your proposal immunised against the same problems? Because you will not be the first person to suggest regulation - those who came before you had similar ideals, and despite their good intentions, they created the current mess.

What regulation? What can my carrier currently do or not do with my content? Is traffic shaping okay? Can this or that ISP throttle and or choke my Netflix streaming? When they start doing it who do I call to complain?

Ever flip on a light switch? I do it all the time and it works pretty good. There's a highly regulated monopoly that works okay. How did regulation of old school utilities turn out okay despite the involvement of government? Can we look at that success and apply it to the ISPs? When the power company wants more money they have to present to a board that checks the numbers. Not perfect, but what is? When my ISP wants more money they just change their name and say we now have an X in our name and your bill is going to go up X dollars! Isn't that GREAT!!!

And before we talk about stifled innovation, I'll consider real innovation and not some imagined future innovation. The rest of the world has innovation, we don't, and we're currently ever so not regulated...

Re:The cycle of regulation

[FourthAge]

Ever flip on a light switch? I do it all the time and it works pretty good. There's a highly regulated monopoly that works okay. How did regulation of old school utilities turn out okay despite the involvement of government?

Of course it works! You expect me to argue about that?? The argument is not, and has never been, that regulation prevents everything from working. (Although this has happened in particularly severe cases outside of the USA.)

No, what I am saying is that it could be even better. There was a discussion yesterday in which a large proportion of the posts were complaining about mis-regulation of energy companies, and how it benefits the incumbent oil, coal and gas industries with subsidies. This is exactly what I am talking about: the regulation benefits the incumbent.

You also seem to think that the telco sector is completely unregulated. I don't know where you got this from. There are plenty of laws preventing you setting up a competing ISP that won't block your Netflix. The established telcos are enjoying the benefits of their situation: the regulation benefits the incumbent.

What you say is "we need more laws". But people have said that before. Laws have been brought in by well-meaning people to redress problems like the ones you say, and each time, the result has been the same: the regulation benefits the incumbent.

An Anti-Regulatory Fantasy

[Ltap]

This shows not just an obvious hatred for regulation, but a lack of knowledge about the beginnings of the Web beyond a few names and dates. While showing that any high level of regulation would be used to the advantage of the big companies like Microsoft, it ignores the fact that companies like Microsoft would use their market share to try to create their own standards and to try to force out their competition through incompatibility -- just like they did in the real 1990s with IE.

Nice Red Herring

[Bob9113]

Wish I had some cream and onions to go with that tasty red herring.

The fact that one can envision scenarios in which FCC regulation would be bad is no more convincing than scenarios in which the monopoly and n-opoly service providers hamper innovation -- except to the extent that we have evidence of one or the other actually happening. As it happens, we do have such evidence with the service providers. Evidence that they will engage in anti-competitive content restriction which inhibits new business models. The broad and rich exploration of new business models is absolutely critical to being a dominant economy during the advent of sea-change new technology.

If the FCC were inhibiting new approaches to communication by the citizens, consumers, and entrepreneurs (as suggested by the fantasy editorial), we would be well advised to spank them. They are not. If the n-opolies are inhibiting such new concepts, we are equally well advised to prevent that behavior. Government exists, in the business world, to ensure that we as a nation can compete and ideally dominate. In new technology fields, that ability is fundamentally premised on exploring unproven business models. Leaving the governance of the Internet exclusively in the hands of existing profit-maximizing corporations is a perfect formula for optimizing existing business models.

Established corporations are very proficient at analyzing what already exists, and making such things more efficient. That is an important component of our economy. New technology demands the more experimental path trod by entrepreneurs in an unrestricted market exploration space. The FCC's role in this new realm of economic opportunity is to ensure that the market remains unrestricted to those entrepreneurs.

Re:Nice Red Herring

[Rockoon]

The fact that one can envision scenarios in which FCC regulation would be bad

Lets be honest here. We can just point to existing FCC regulations in other industries for all the examples of "bad" that we need.

You want Net Neutrality? Great. So do I. Do you honestly believe that the FCC gives a fuck about Net Neutrality? I do not.

I know for sure that the FCC doesnt give a fuck about Net Neutrality. As has been pointed out time and again, the ISP's could be rolled up into Common Carrier status by the FCC today.. but thats not happening.

The FCC doesnt want your packets to be treated like a land-line phone call. They want to eventually regulate the content of those packets.

You people that want Net Neutrality so badly that you support the FCC are the fucking problem. You are setting us up for the loss of free speech, DOUCHE BAGS.

Regulations...

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, regulating the Internet could take many forms. For example, you might only be allowed to use certified equipment (or perhaps only certified software) to connect, as is the case with CB radio. Or, more optimistically, ISPs may be required to act as common carriers and not be allowed to turn the Internet into a clone of the cable TV system.

It is not really a question of whether or not the Internet should be regulated, it is a more of a question of which regulations would be best for the American people. The large corporations that currently control our access to the Internet want to turn it into another cable TV system, with "websites" acting as "channels" and "peer to peer" being a forgotten memory; without some sort of regulation, they will go ahead and do that, and we'll need to establish a second Internet to escape.

Re:Regulations...

[ratboy666]

I think that, perhaps, you are confused by what the "Internet" is.

The Internet is the network of networks. When I connect my network, which, for the record, is under my sole control, and not under any other regulation, to another network, we have a piece of the "Internet".

The Internet is facilitated, but not defined, by the "backbone" -- fiber optic connections (currently). The Internet does not mandate the form of these backbone interconnects. They exist because, simply, there is a need or desire to send that much data between the interconnected systems and networks.

So, what are you proposing should be regulated?

Nothing in the description of the "Internet" mentioned content, or physical interconnection requirements, or physical systems.

Read the article -- the point is brought home when the author mentions "Bob" and "minitel" as being REQUIRED to connect... not to the "Internet" but to regulated information providers.

As an example - my neighbor has a network of around 5 systems, and I have a comparable network. We connect these networks using two different ISPs (a cable provider and a DSL provider). We also occasionally directly connect with 802.11g wireless. The connections are made to exchange data (photos, videos, Linux distributions, it really is none of anyones business). What regulations would you want to put into place, and where?

Because 802.11g, ethernet, etc. are just convenient standards that permit us interoperability. We could come up with our own local protocol if we had to. The ISP provides a higher degree of interoperability (an IPv4 address that allows my network to be reached from other ISPs that co-operate, packet services that allow data to be exchanged, and access to DNS services to provide a convenient naming service). There really isn't any service my ISP offers that I couldn't easily replace, except for access to the high-speed backbone.

In the case of my neighbor, that isn't a problem. But my best friend has his own network; but is located across the country. Data exchange with him would be impaired without my ISP (and, my use of /. would be curtailed).

I thought the article was actually very well thought out. The point is that the "Internet", being a simple connection between systems and networks, only exists because it is beneficial to the connecting parties, and the method of connection is irrelevant.

Now, as soon as enough systems and networks participate, there is a "network effect", and some of the "Internet" may degenerate into a pure producer/consumer relationship. I imagine that this is what you want to regulate. Be careful though, because the end game of regulation is simply that some parties may decide to pack up their dolls and leave. We are not TIED to the infrastructure. We have always had a bit of balkanization in the Internet. Certainly, not all of my content is publicly available. Some is simply not directly addressable, or findable via Google (darknet, an example of this would be my music collection, family photos and videos, which I share to friends but no one else). Some is SSL only, and password controlled (my TV watching schedule, my calendar. And some is only locally available (banking statements, financial records).

In previous years (when high-speed meant 1Mbps down/128kbps up), I shared this data with my distant friends via transport of CD, or hard disk drive. 5 Gbytes of music was a lot to jam down the limited communication pipe I had. So, the mail and airplane system was part of my "Internet". It can be again, if those physical pipes are regulated to the point where the data will be inspected.

In other words

The Internet is dead; Long live the Internet

Re:Regulations...

[jedidiah]

> When I connect my network, which, for the record, is
> under my sole control, and not under any other regulation,
> to another network, we have a piece of the "Internet".

Well you run off the rails pretty much immediately, right here infact. The rest of your rather long rant is just based on this bogus bit of wishful thinking.

You have to get through your ISP in order to get to the outside world. If they are unregulated, then they are free to mess with you as much as they want too. It's like if all of the surface streets leading to your local highway were controlled by Microsoft or McDonalds. They could control what gets to Target or Walmart or your local grocery store or even your own house via UPS or FedEx.

Imagine Walmart or Apple being able to prevent Amazon or Netflix from delivering to you via UPS or the postal service.

That's what your local unregulated ISP can do to you.

and so ?

[unity100]

since the line sharing agreement (hellooo regulation) ended in 2006, there are no small regional isps left anymore in the first place ? how that has been any different ?

Re:and so ?

[morgan_greywolf]

Because it was the small ISPs that pioneered one price, all-you-eat Internet service. Early offerings from the telcos were metered services, priced per megabyte.

The small ISPs forced the big telcos and cable to offer the pricing structure that's in place today.

Only in america

[petes_PoV]

The internet is a worldwide network. If one country banned or censored it, it would make almost no difference to everyone else - expect that the amount of spam might be down a little.

Re:Only in america

[Culture20]

The internet is a worldwide network. If one country banned or censored it, it would make almost no difference to everyone else - expect that the amount of spam might be down a little.

Now it is. What about in its infancy? Without the US, would Finland house the ICANN lookalike?

Re:Only in america

[WWWWolf]

The internet is a worldwide network. If one country banned or censored it, it would make almost no difference to everyone else - expect that the amount of spam might be down a little.

Now it is. What about in its infancy? Without the US, would Finland house the ICANN lookalike?

Literal answer to a rhetorical question: Finland has had a very good electronics industry with curious innovations, there's been interest in computer science in academia for a long time, the businesses have been very enthusiastic about applied computing, and politicians have been fairly supportive of technological advances. So hell yes. ICANN was founded in 1998, and by then, Finnish internet infrastructure was already pretty good. (Remember the Penet remailer? Fucking with Scientology since nineteen frigging ninety three?)

Competition, now and then

[DCheesi]

In the early days, internet service did not require regulation because there was plenty of competition. The barriers to entry were low; anyone could set up a modem bank and T1 service and start serving dial-up customers. My provider was a local one-man operation, with service just as good as (and cheaper than) the big names.

But with the transition to broadband, the incumbent phone and cable providers gained immense power. Their existing physical infrastructure gave them a largely insurmountable advantage over potential new entrants. This created an effective duopoly, one that still persists today in many markets. In such a situation, the free market cannot function, and government regulation is required to prevent abuses.

Re:Competition, now and then

[hercubus]

... created an effective duopoly, one that still persists today in many markets. In such a situation, the free market cannot function, and government regulation is required to prevent abuses.

This is the part that the Libertarian loudmouths ignore. There is no market. Their magical invisible hand that solves all problems just turns into a choking fist when you have too few competitors.

The only sane solutions are government owned pipes (think water/sewer) or highly regulated privately owned pipes (think electricity/gas).

I like my local city utility monopoly. I like my power and gas monopolies. I despise all two of my choices from the Net duopoly camp.

Every city knows they have to "do" sewer/water/trash. Every state knows they have to "do" power and gas - even if it's just to set up a framework for local co-ops. Wish some state was willing and able to "do" Internet and fight off the corporate douchebags. Maybe next generation...

What a load of hooey...

[QuietLagoon]

The scenario described in TFA is but one of millions and millions that could have transpired. Yet that one was chosen because it fits into the author's agenda.

.
GMAFB

soooo ?

[unity100]

what relevance does this have ? telcos consolidated because of the all you can eat prices ? they werent going to consolidate, if there wasnt such a model ? youre talking as if consolidation didnt happen in ALL other sectors left without regulation.

let me put bluntly : if you allow it, big dog eats the small dog.

Re:soooo ?

[Jane Q. Public]

I was an early adopter of dial-up internet, and even considered starting my own ISP service. At no time were any internet services in my area priced per byte. It was always unlimited. Slow sometimes, but unlimited.

Re:soooo ?

[morgan_greywolf]

If you were paying unlimited, you were not an early adopter. I'm talking about the 1980s here, not after Al Gore uttered the words "information superhighway" and the September that Never Ended began.

We already had it. Called X.25

[shoppa]

We already had "the internet" regulated, tarriffed, and adopted by the suits.

It was called X.25.

In retrospect it was the best possible scenario. All the standards writers, and the big business suits, and the government, and the telcos, were chasing X.25. Giving hackers the freedom to do TCP/IP and SMTP and FTP and the web etc.

BEST POSSIBLE SCENARIO!

"until FCC approves it"???

[mapkinase]

In late 1993, AOL and Delphi become the first online services to offer the Internet. The FCC orders both to drop the feature until the FCC's labs approve it.

Where does this come from? Current sizzling fresh regulation does not say anything about that as far as I know.

Slate buys The Onion?

[sstamps]

Seriously, I had to check which site I was on when I started reading that article.

If the FCC was as evil as it is painted in that article, BBSs would never have come into existence. Instead, FCC regulation ENABLED BBSs to exist, and at a level that could be afforded by most anyone.