Slashdot Mirror
President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility
vivIsel writes In a move that is sure to generate controversy, the President has announced his support for regulation of broadband connections, including cellular broadband, under Title 2 of the Telecommunications Act. Reclassification of broadband in this way would treat it as a utility, like landline telephones, subject providers to new regulations governing access, and would allow the FCC to easily impose net neutrality requirements.
Say what you want about Obama, but I guarantee the next president (probably Republican) won't care about preserving Net Neutrality.
he would not have appointed Tom Wheeler, a former telco lobbyist, to head the FCC.
Despite all his other downsides, this could create a legacy perception equal to that of Teddy Rosevelts's "trustbusting"
They both require massive connections to other, unrelated networks - so uniformity in protocals.
The both must also connect to human interfaces that are always made by a third party, so again, uniformity of protocals.
They provide something that is in effect a commodity measured pretty much entirety by reliability and 'size of the pipe'. You don't get different flavors, etc.
We are using it to get to places we want to get to, not for itself. Just like any other utility.
Broadband is obviously a utility and should be treated as one.
The attempt to charge people on both ends is an abuse of power. When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Cue even more millions of lobbying dollars for Republicans to block NN at all costs.
(Of course the roles would be reversed if it was a Republican president and Democratic congress.)
It may be "a move that is sure to generate controversy", but it's the right direction for things to be moving. The Internet is not an entertainment service or a toy. It's vital infrastructure that's necessary for our society to move forward economically and technologically, and it should be treated as such. Having crappy Internet should be considered as shameful as having crappy roads, run down train systems, beat up airports, and bridges that are falling down. Unfortunately, in the US, we seem to be fine with all of that.
The courts have essentially said that in the absence of title 2 reclassification, net neutrality won't be possible. But what the President is proposing IS title two regulation. Should the FCC move forward with this (its choice) it should not have an issue in the courts.
If Obama had his way, he wouldn't go through Congress for anything. Even the Congress goes beyond its prerogative through wide interpretation of the constitutional Commerce Clause. The level of authoritative, unconstitutional, power each part of the federal government goes with is amazing...
I'm pretty happy with government. I certainly have a lot of issues I'm unhappy with (surveillance, constant foreign war, too-low taxes, imprudent corporate priorities, insufficient transfer payments to the poor) but those are nitpicks compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with: domestic peace, prosperity, transportation, validity of vote counts, fading homophobia, fading racism.
America has a lot of problems but we're doing a lot more right than wrong. I don't actually have a strong opinion on regulating internet providers but my general assumption would be whatever the industry opposes is the best thing for America. So whatever side that puts me on, I'm on that side of that issue.
There are actually two problems at play here - with one common reason. The first is that the backbone ISPs are purposefully allowing their peering connections to saturate to hurt video companies like Netflix. The second is that last mile ISPs want to charge certain companies (e.g. video companies like Netflix) extra for the "privilege" of not having their packet delivery slowed to a crawl.
The reason for both of these is that these ISPs also - for the most part - offer cable TV services. They don't want upstarts like Netflix taking money away from their cable TV revenue so they are trying every trick they can to prevent people from using Netflix. (This includes setting bandwidth caps and charging overage fees.) Given that these ISPs also tend to be monopolies (or duopolies) in their areas, these actions *should* result in anti-trust investigations. Unfortunately, enough lobbying money has been spread around to keep anti-trust proceedings from starting.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
Title 2 reclassification, which the President has proposed, is *exactly* how you do this. Common carriage, a form of title 2 regulation which governs the phone system, among other things mandates that phone infrastructure owners resell service at a reasonable wholesale rate to other phone providers. This is why you can buy phone service from any phone provider - not just the one who owns the cable that comes to your house.
The problem you're articulating - a hugely important problem - is exactly what the President is trying to tackle here. Net neutrality is part of it, but title two reclassification gives the FCC much, much broader powers to keep the eyeball networks (i.e. home broadband providers) in line. It doesn't predetermine what the FCC will do with these powers, but this is the right track.
For more details, I recommend Susan Crawford's excellent book, Captive Audience. http://yalepress.yale.edu/book...
Yeah, who needs it? Look how well it worked out for Somalia when their government disintegrated and they were freed from that yoke. Lebanon in the 80s and Kosovo in the 90s were such shining examples, too. And it was so much better in the USA before the Civil Rights Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the creation of the FTC.
You're right. Comcast is so much better at controlling the internet than the government would be.
Partisan policy aside, the government wants us to want them to regulate the nets. They want it because it will give them an excuse to tax your connection. Once the FCC steps in, they will need money to "manage" and to prosecute and to investigate. Mark my words, this has nothing to do with Netflix and everything to do with an additional revenue stream.
Interesting. The Obamacare of X analogy is great. Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare, that only gets portrayed as liberal because Obama is pushing it. No one cared when Romney rolled out Romneycare in his own state.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
For a long time, DSL operated at least nominally in common-carriage, mainly because DSL literally came over the same copper pair that one's telephone (which already was common-carriage) was provided through. I had a DSL account through a differnet company than my local phone service- I had one small charge for the DSL-line, and a separate charge from the company whose IP network I was a part of. In my case I did it because I was able to get a near-business-grade setup (5 usable static IPs, control of reverse-resolve, no ports blocked so I could self-host e-mail and web, etc) at a consumer-grade price.
Given that Cable had no such rules, the phone companies that played by the common-carriage rules were hamstrung early on, until, like Cable, they started working with the mindset that DSL wasn't bound by those rules. I was grandfathered-in with my DSL arrangement until I moved, then they wouldn't offer me the connection to the ISP anymore, I had to go with Qwest. So, I switched to cable instead, and they lost-out even more as I also cancelled my landline and took the number to a cell phone. Had they continued to operate as common-carriage, I might STILL have that DSL account with those static IPs and still pay the phone company for the privilege.
I wonder how this will affect Google Fiber?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The GOP, and Mitch McConnell famously, stated that their purpose was to make Obama a one term president. Failing that, they have nearly frozen the legislative process and refused to participate in governing. So while your initial statement is subjectively accurate, the GOP left him little choice but to use the powers his office possesses to attempt to address the needs of the nation.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
The number one concern for the American vote is NOT the economy. The economy is doing great. People's paychecks are what suck. The lack of decent paying jobs is what sucks. The wage gap is what sucks. But the economy? It's doing great, thanks.
If the GOP was concerned about the American voter, they'd up the minimum wage to $11/hr. Instead, they rely on the gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and hundreds of millions in Koch contributions and dark money to fund propaganda that will convince people to vote against their interests.
But people turn out for presidential elections, and I'm trusting that the GOP will be unable to fight the tidal wave of voter resentment.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
I'll add health care...
I support fully socialized medicine....all health care orgs become non-profit...
Health Care scarcity is Artificial Scarcity in 2014....in the US we have more than enough resources to give for free the health care everyone needs...So you might say I "oppose" Obamacare in that *isn't socialist enough*
But conversely, he Republicans have only criticism of Obama's work on health care, but no actual solution for the health care crisis
the GOP didn't even think the health care crisis was any of their concern until liberals forced the issue
Thank you Dave Raggett
Well, except that Obamacare is a conservative approach to healthcare
Only implemented twice ... once in Massachusetts which leans extremely left, and then upon the nation as a whole when the left controlled house, senate, AND whitehouse.
You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.
A conservative government wouldnt do that.
"His name was James Damore."
Incorrect. Ted Cruz is no moron. He knows which side his bread is buttered on and he is wasting no time taking the position that his puppet-masters have told him to take, and he's hoping that the moron's who voted for him continue to overlook this behavior.
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from? Why should I pay the same for my connection as the household that's running three or four simultaneous HD streams during peak hours? My 95th percentile is less than 0.5mbit/s, yet I pay the same as my neighbor who regularly runs three HD streams at the same time. Hardly seems fair, does it?
2) Related to the last point above, moving bits doesn't directly cost the ISP money but sustained higher bitrates do require a larger CapEx investment. Caps are a blunt force instrument that should be done away with in favor of demand or 95th percentile billing, IMHO.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
4) Settlement free peering (which is essentially what Netflix is demanding) has historically only been offered in instances where the traffic to be exchanged is roughly equal. If you're relying on me to deliver your traffic for you then you pay me. It has been this way since the beginning of the commercial internet. This ecosystem literally built the internet as we know it. If you want to blow it up the onus is on you to explain why your system is better.
5) Netflix has a history of trying to offload their costs onto third parties, be they ISPs, Tier 1 networks, CDNs, etc.
6) Netflix isn't exactly the white knight that everyone thinks they are. They're a for profit company; one that I stopped doing business with after they decided to double my price with little prior warning. They've cut deals that are detrimental to their customers (i.e., withholding new releases); any other company that behaved in such a fashion would be roundly hated around these parts.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Your point is absolutely mute because this is not about net neutrality at all. Obama's statement does not do anything _for_ net neutrality, and I'll argue that it's more to ensure Government intrusion than to ensure access for everyone. Remember that as soon as it's rated as a "utility" it will have to receive more funding from tax payers for Government "monitoring" and "regulation" (read crony appointees). If you have doubts look how AT&T receives funding from tax payers to duplicate ALL traffic to various NSA facilities today.
If you want to see some of the most corrupt businesses alive today, look no further than utilities. This is nothing more than a front, primarily to stop the debate about Government intrusion but also to squeeze more money from the middle class.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:
1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems. The advent of mainstream streaming video completely changed the engineering calculus for last mile networks. Over subscription ratios need to change to accommodate the higher peak hour bitrates; this takes time and costs money. Where should this money come from? Why should I pay the same for my connection as the household that's running three or four simultaneous HD streams during peak hours? My 95th percentile is less than 0.5mbit/s, yet I pay the same as my neighbor who regularly runs three HD streams at the same time. Hardly seems fair, does it?
2) Related to the last point above, moving bits doesn't directly cost the ISP money but sustained higher bitrates do require a larger CapEx investment. Caps are a blunt force instrument that should be done away with in favor of demand or 95th percentile billing, IMHO.
3) IPTV is inherently inefficient vis-a-vis point-to-multipoint delivery systems (i.e., cable, OTA, satellite)
4) Settlement free peering (which is essentially what Netflix is demanding) has historically only been offered in instances where the traffic to be exchanged is roughly equal. If you're relying on me to deliver your traffic for you then you pay me. It has been this way since the beginning of the commercial internet. This ecosystem literally built the internet as we know it. If you want to blow it up the onus is on you to explain why your system is better.
5) Netflix has a history of trying to offload their costs onto third parties, be they ISPs, Tier 1 networks, CDNs, etc.
6) Netflix isn't exactly the white knight that everyone thinks they are. They're a for profit company; one that I stopped doing business with after they decided to double my price with little prior warning. They've cut deals that are detrimental to their customers (i.e., withholding new releases); any other company that behaved in such a fashion would be roundly hated around these parts.
1. False choice - how a delivery system was engineered is irrelevant. Today fiber technology and capacity exists and the infrastructure investments are not Capital intense.
2. False - Moore's law is the technical constraint. Political will is the social constraint.
3. False - Iptv is better at all distribution workloads for media. Networking tech easily allows for highly efficient compressed or uncompressed media delivery via multicast protocols. It is cable that is inefficient.
4. False - research has proven that assymmeteic last mile connections can never allow for equal peering. The premise that bits flowing in one direction costs more than the other direction is a calculated business decision based on the monopoly and regulatory environment. The same way that international sms messages are technically cost less, same goes for bits traveling in either direction, it's a neutral proposition.
5. The costs you are talking about are less than a few thousands of dollars per link. A drop in the bucket.
6. Drop subscribtion. There are alternative media delivery businesses consumers can choose. Consumers have no such luxury under current US isp arrangements.
Studied electrical & network engineering, public policy and econ. Counterarguments welcome :)
Others have countered more of your points, but I just wanted to address this one:
The Internet in general wasn't formed with video delivery in mind. Does this mean that nobody should ever distribute video over the Internet and expect it to work? Of course not. Times change and the use case for the Internet - and residential broadband networks - change as well. Most of the problems with distributing videos across residential networks seem to be caused by the ISPs who don't want to invest in infrastructure improvements, but want to keep taking users' money. Add in that these ISPs are usually monopolies/duopolies and the market can't "fix" this situation.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.