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.
This clearly means no net neutrality in the US. If Obama wanted net neutrality, he would oppose it and Republicans would then be for it. But by supporting it, republicans will never start any such legislation now. Maybe even the opposite of net neutrality will be what they will pass.
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.
In the highest profile case, Cogent has offered to cover the capital costs of the needed upgrade. The problem is that last-mile ISPs are trying to collect ongoing monopoly rents by charging transit to backbone providers well in excess of the ISP's actual cost of moving the bits, when the ISP's customers are already paying their part of the cost of moving the bits.
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
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.
I did read it. It does not say that.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
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.
Seems Ted Cruz is not wasting any time in opposing Obama on Net Neutrality by calling it "ObamaCare for the Internet", a laughably stupid hyperbolic statement only a complete moron would make -- unfortunately, he's got a support base of tens of millions even bigger morons who will think this idiotic statement is actually accurate.
You may be correct in your generalization, but what is gained by trotting this out when the gentleman has proposed regulating a specific something which badly needs regulation?
But we all know it will. There's far too much money at play for the system to work fairly and/or justly in this instance.
Does a "utility" mean that we could finally have true net neutrality and use the internet as it was designed, such as having unblocked incoming ports 80/443? I use alternate ports to route around this to access my files remotely, but strictly speaking I'm violating the ISP T&C by having a "server" at home.
However, I often want to access my home files from wifi access points such as hospitals where outgoing 80/443 are the only ports open (no outgoing ssh, etc. allowed). But my cable provider blocks incoming 80/443, so I'm completely cut off from my home files. I would rather not pay to put a TB of files on the "cloud" or pay some 3rd party service to reroute ports or whatever.
Net neutrality means that QoS based on port (e.g., VOIP gets priority over HTTP) is OK; but QoS based on content or the owner of an IP is not OK.
We all understand that; but the mouth-breathers and cronies that will regulate the Internet will generate 1600 pages of crap that nobody can read, just to define "QoS".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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.
Ok, first... extremely liberal... hahah ha lol good one.
Second, if corporations have shown themselves incapable of doing their job then what is are his options? You can't seriously be supporting the status quo?
There is no indication whatever of that in TFA, but suppose it is put in place. What a tragedy! Like those nasty soup kitchens and putting up the homeless where they won't freeze to death. Let them die, and while we're at it let's make sure they are without internet as they are dying.
Why do anything at all to mitigate rich pricks accumulating all the resources? What could be wrong with the fact that the world's 85 richest individuals now have as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest people put together?
Headline should read "Common Carrier" because that's the option Obama picked....the strongest protection for users.
This is what we have wanted all along...the best protection for Net Neutrality
Damn /. or any troll/techies who try to downplay this move by Obama...he gave us *exactly* what we asked for
No Republican would do this.
Thank you Dave Raggett
The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Back in the 1990s when ISPs were being sued by the MPAA and RIAA for carrying bootlegged stuff, the ISPs claimed common carrier status as the reason they should not be sued - arguing that they just carry the bits and have nothing to do with what the bits actually are.
Fast forward to the 2000s when Verizon et al start rolling out their own video networks. Well, suddenly they claim "media company" status and not common carrier status, so they can regulate actual content.
I'm not sure what backdoor deal allowed them to abandon common carrier and still not get sued for carrying pirated material, but I am sure there was something baked into an agriculture or other unrelated bill that did it.
you're an idiot
this move, treating all ISP's as "Common Carriers" has been pushed for almost a decade in IT policy circles
everyone, including every single tech company, wants this law
all techies want this law
you're getting what you want, then you say "bah...it's just *political*..."
you're the problem here...you're obstinate immature notions of how this country should work are ruining America
people like you are a pox upon Democracy
Thank you Dave Raggett
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
The government does regulate those prices. There's laws on the books, for instance, that say stores have to charge you the posted/marked price on items, they can't just decide to charge you more or less depending on who you are or why you're buying the stuff. And while the store can in large part refuse to do business with you completely, the government does regulate even that to a degree by barring them from refusing service based on race etc. (a store can refuse to do business with an individual, but they can't refuse to do business with black people or Catholics). Even loyalty programs that offer discounts are subject to those regulations, they generally have to be available to all customers who ask to enroll.
The government even regulates actual prices to a degree, for instance there are laws on the books prohibiting merchants from significantly raising prices when a disaster strikes and demand for crucial items spikes.
The most insidious part may be from point 1:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.
Maybe someone will have to preemptively decide whether the content is legal, including international content I guess. Sounds like a job for the government!
Everyone thinks that the idea of a monopoly is bad, but I think it would work fine in this case. Raw broadband bandwidth is a utility. AT&T bandwidth isn't (or shouldn't be) any different than Verizon, Comcast or CenturyLink. As it is now, there are tons of companies spending huge amounts of money to keep their networks barely at capacity simply because there's so much traffic to pass around. One company could do this much more efficiently than everyone trying to build their own distribution network, the same way public utilities don't run 4 competing electric lines or water pipes over the same route. In addition, there would be no net neutrality debate, since every user has to plug into the same common carrier.
People love to complain about old-school pre-breakup AT&T, but the high prices they were able to charge allowed them to over-engineer the phone system for reliability. Cable companies routinely oversubscribe links by a significant amount, and DSL providers don't provision enough bandwidth to the CO to deal with the number of connected customers. Internet bandwidth has become a utility in the US - there aren't very many people who are not users of it in some form or another. The problem is that people have no concept of paying for a service and want the cheapest possible price they can get, so the providers don't invest.
Even classifying bandwidth as being subject to common carrier rules would allow rural areas to be served more effectively. There is currently no incentive for broadband providers to provide good rural service. The universal service fees that had to be paid for wireline phone service were an attempt to subsidize this cost and make sure rural areas at least had connectivity. It's a similar problem to the federal highway funding formula -- more fuel efficient cars mean less gas tax revenue, which has the unintended effect of delaying infrastructure improvements. And fewer people paying universal service fees (or higher prices in general) mean that the broadband network is neglected.
Pros I see --
- Ends the net neutrality debate once and for all
- Allows AT&T or whoever gets the monopoly power to invest in the network without worrying about shareholders penalizing them
- Unintended pro might be greater levels of employment at a more stable employer.
Cons --
- You know, monopolies are universally evil and the free market should dictate everything
- Everyone will pay more (but for better service)
It seems to me that re-forming AT&T or similar is the best way to deal with this ongoing problem. It's not perfect but it does have advantages.
I might be a tree hugging liberal, but the Dems have an awful record when it comes to regulating technology.
No argument but the Republicans record isn't really any better. That said, I still think the basic notion of regulating internet access is an idea with merit even if the ruling parties aren't exactly brilliant at it. Internet access is as important to modern life as telephone access was 30 years ago. It has become an integral part of our lives and the companies that provide it seem to need a bit more oversight than they presently have.
I don't see why the Republicans would be any better or worse.
Because while the Democrats tend to screw up the regulations, the Republicans like to pretend that regulations are never good even when there is are clear abuses going on that markets cannot adequately address. Sometimes bad regulations are better than no regulations at all. (and vice-versa) I'm honestly uncomfortable with the amount of power that companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC etc have over our internet connectivity. They have effectively an almost unregulated monopoly over internet service and have shown little reluctance to abuse that position when it suits them.
Did he actually support regulating it as a utility, or did he support that bullshit "hybrid" proposal that essentially leaves us where we are now, so we'll take our fake little cookie and STFU about it.
Don't tell us what we wanted. We want prioritized traffic. We've ALWAYS wanted prioritized traffic.
Next you're going to tell me that we WANTED a healthcare system with a commercially competitive marketplace.
Why do you hate America?
[never try and reason with the /. crowd...they've already made up their minds who they hate]
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If Obama had his way, he wouldn't go through Congress for anything.
I'm not saying he should rule by fiat or anything of the sort but I understand the frustration the guy must feel. Would you be eager to go to congress when the republicans oppose everything he does regardless of the merits of the idea? Even when the item being debated was their idea. They don't even try to compromise, they just say no, especially if they are a tea party candidate. Used to be that the two sides could at least talk to each other. Now a republican has to pass an ideological purity test and cannot ever even seem to be compromising or he doesn't even win the primary in the next election. The republicans like to bitch about the Affordable Care Act but they don't ever propose any alternatives or improvements even though there is plenty that could be improved. Instead they just waste everyone's time in futile votes trying to remove health insurance from millions of people that couldn't previously afford it.
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.
Would much rather see legislation focus on promoting last mile fiber infrastructure any ISP can compete to light up on a fair and equal basis.
That Net neutrality is even an issue is a symptom of larger problem of market failure. As long as the only viable ISP in town is a national cable company you can legislate till your blue in the face customers are still going to get fucked over as long as there remains no serious alternative.
You should read this paper very carefully:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...
Also, Somalia currently has the cheapest and best cell phone service in Africa.
The "move to Somalia" argument is a pretty standard trope when having conversations about the proper size and scope of government. Of course, there are lots of reasons why overweight white software engineers from America wouldn't necessarily thrive in Somalia irrespective of what kind of government it did or didn't have, but that doesn't really seem to diminish how often the trope is pulled out, so let's try something else -- you know, actual data.
Rather than repeating an unsubstantiated bias, I encourage you to read the paper I linked.
I'll spoil it a little bit: The conclusion, of course, isn't that all governments are bad (that's a philosophical conjecture, not a testable hypothesis). It is, however, quite apparent that some governments are so bad that no government is actually preferable.
This is actually the case in Somalia.
Somalia may at some point transition to a government that is objectively better than their current situation, but their current arrangement is, as the paper argues, objectively better than their previously governed condition.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.