FCC votes to regulate the internet

[manning]

SORRY, BUT I HAVE TO POST THIS.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/21/coup-fcc/

 

[agnes!]

wow.

agnes!

 

[phorsenuf]

Regulated how though? There are no specific, no real information there at all.

 

[bicker]

Well, I monitor the RSS feed for the FCC's releases so as soon as they post what they supposedly did, I'll pass it along.

If folks want to check themselves, here's the RSS URL:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/feed.do

 

[bicker]

This is what we know, so far:

As currently drafted, the proposed rules, according to senior FCC officials, will apply "robust transparency rules" to both fixed and mobile Internet service providers, meaning they'll have to be diligent in disclosing information to consumers as well as application, content, and device makers that deploy services on those broadband networks.

Also built in is a rule that prohibits wireline ISPs from blocking lawful applications, content, and devices. However, the FCC will allow those ISPs to use "reasonable" network management.

The proposed rules are less strict for mobile broadband ISPs when it comes to the blocking of some Web sites, but they will be prohibited from blocking competitive voice and video telephony services, such as those from Skype Ltd. Wireless broadband will also be subject to reasonable network management.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=202219&site=lr_cable

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Crap on a cracker. Bye bye Net neutrality.

 

[bicker]

I'm, of course, opposed to the FCC acting in direct contradiction to the will of Congress, but putting that aside, it should be noted that this isn't the catastophe the hyperbole-laden (and unnecessarily vague) missive from the unsurprisingly clueless Phil Kerpen, on the Fox News website.

The regulation would prohibit ISPs from blocking applications, content and devices, but doesn't prohibit them from imposing tiered service for various levels of speed and total throughput. Those loopholes make it practical for ISPs to effectively cripple the applications most likely to be the targets of the blocks that the regulation prohibits. Essentially, this regulation is pushing the industry toward metered service (instead of unlimited service). Metered service is really a fairer way of charging for Internet access anyway.

The regulation also explicitly permits reasonable network management which can be applied to provide priority service for short bursts of inbound data, and then reduce priority as the call for more inbound data is continued. What this does is it provides superior quality for asynchronous applications, such as surfing websites, posting on message boards, checking email, paying bills, online shopping, etc., and degrades service for pipeline applications, such as video streaming, which the ISP typically provides themselves, through another part of their service.

So like many other government regulations that violate reasonable standards of government non-interference in business, this regulation probably can be easily worked-around by the industry, at least until the Congress gets around to smacking the FCC down for a fourth time in five years, for overreaching its authority and essentially doing a ridiculous power-grab.

(It should be noted that if the voice and video telephony exclusions are explicit, that might represent the only really meaty portion of this regulation, as it will open the doors up for Skype, which could significantly hurt mobile broadband service providers, who make a lot of their money on unused airtime.)

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Crap on a cracker. Bye bye Net neutrality.

It seems like they're passing something that is contradictory to itself. It prevents ISP's from choking bandwidth and charging exorbitant amounts, but there are bits and pieces of other things coming out that seem to hurt the open internet.

I'll wait to see what Bicker finds out to pass final judgment.

 

[cm8]

Crap on a cracker. Bye bye Net neutrality.

 

[bicker]

Crap on a cracker. Bye bye Net neutrality.

I'm not sure what implication you're drawing here: If the information quoted above is true, then this regulation essentially would implement some measure of net neutrality (despite there being practically no support for net neutrality beyond a scant minority of technophiles and superficial bandwagonism).

Perhaps you were implying by doing so the FCC has essentially poisoned the pool, within which the EFF and the other supporters of net neutrality had hoped to build real support for their interventionism. By directly going against what is generally understood to be the will of Congress, four days before Christmas, perhaps the FCC will have incited the myriad opponents of net neutrality regulation to crush not only this regulation but put up more substantial and effective resistance to any overtures in the future that may smell, even a little bit, like net neutrality.

 

[bicker]

It seems like they're passing something that is contradictory to itself. It prevents ISP's from choking bandwidth and charging exorbitant amounts, but there are bits and pieces of other things coming out that seem to hurt the open internet.

Hmmm... perhaps you have more information than I have.

I don't see anything here that would prevent anyone from charging whatever they wish to charge. All "robust transparency" provides for is that actual costs should be disclosed in advance. I have a hard time understanding how someone would defend an objection to that, at least at that level. And even though the FCC can cavalierly put the regulation in place, they cannot enforce it in a cavalier manner. If they did, they'd quickly find themselves in court, and if I remember correctly, in cases like that, the FCC loses nine times out of ten. So, the implementation of "robust transparency" would be relatively reasonable. In the end, the only service providers affected by those provisions would be the few small service providers that seek to steal customers away from the big guys by low-balling the price. If anything, this provision may end up being a benefit to the big guys.

Also, as I understand it, there is nothing there that would prevent service providers from choking off bandwidth. They can put usage caps in place, no problem, and as I alluded to, above, they could deploy metered service. The only thing they can't do is say, "Uh! That's Hulu! Block it!" They couldn't even deprioritize Hulu (or Netflix, or whatever) based on the fact that it is Hulu, nor even based on the fact that it is video. They would have to go down to the level of abstraction I alluded to above: The amount of inbound data being drawn within a specified period exceeds a certain amount.

 

[FireDancer]

Crap on a cracker. Bye bye Net neutrality.

If the FCC regulates the ISPs as opposed to the Internet (and does it correctly) it can further as opposed to hinder net neutrality.

What I want is the FCC to state that a packet is a packet and all are treated equally (ie neutral as in net neutrality). It doesn't matter if that packet carries part of an email message, a web page, a television show, or a phone call. All packets should be treated equally and, most importantly, be charged for equally. I do not want an ISP to determine, for example, that I must pay more for a packet containing a movie than a packet containing an email message.

I also don't want the ISPs to throttle packets (faster or slower) based on content. If they want to offer special packages where certain types of traffic gets prioritized, like in an MPLS network, that is fine as it would be a conscious choice but the consumer but that should not be the default and should not be the only option.

There is a very good chance of the FCC completely messing this up because the government has shown they are not very good at legislating technology (exhibit1: The DMCA).

 

[bicker]

What I want is the FCC to state that a packet is a packet and all are treated equally (ie neutral as in net neutrality).

To be clear, none of the large (terrestrial) broadband service providers are discriminating based on the content of packets (anymore), and there is no reason to believe that they ever would have, ever again. (And as I mentioned earlier, they don't really need to.)

 

[bicker]

It's hit the mainstream media now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40768809

The new rules are likely to face intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill once Republicans take over the House. Meanwhile, public interest groups decried the regulations as too weak, particularly for wireless systems.

A wise man once said that if you upset an equal number of people on both sides of a controversy, then you've arrived at a fair and just decision.

the rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, such as those from rivals.

An activity that no one actually engages in, as I noted above.

 

[Bilberry]

Reason magazine has a good video, I thought, on the proposed new FCC regulation. It's not something I'm in favor of.

"Will net neutrality save the internet? Or will the FCC hobble it. Must watch video"

http://twitter.com/DrEades

 

[bicker]

What a mighty strange Twitterfeed to find our way to a video about this.

Great video though.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Isn't this an issue that has been demonized in other countries for generations? Isn't this an issue that was supposed to set us apart from other 'so called' closed societies?

 

[bicker]

Either side can claim the high road in that regard, though. Those opposed to regulation can do so straight-out: Freedom is freedom; let the market decide. Those in favor of regulation can do so by arguing that the regulation ensures that the marketplace doesn't drive toward a closed system in a de facto manner.

 

[bicker]

More detail on the background of the various commissioners' positions:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/461397-FCC_Adopts_First_Open_Internet_Regulations.php

 

[FireDancer]

Isn't this an issue that has been demonized in other countries for generations? Isn't this an issue that was supposed to set us apart from other 'so called' closed societies?

Closed societies regulate content, so far the FCC is only interested in regulating connections. If they start talking about putting up the US equivalent of the Golden Shield Project (aka The Great Firewall) the issue changes. Of course just because the regulation is starting one way doesn't mean it won't end another but it's a bit early to assume we will start getting a censored internet.

There are much more pressing issues in regards to our Internet freedom than the proposed (at least as currently proposed) FCC regulation. One is the ludicrous notion that a back door should be pre-installed in crypto software to allow ease dropping by law enforcement. There are also a lot of issue around what warrants are needed for data and who those warrants have to be served on.