FCC sets Internet regulation in motion

  • Thread starter geochem1st
  • Start date
  • This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to get the ball rolling on creating regulation that will keep the Internet open.
All five commissioners voted in favor of advancing the rule-making process for a proposal that was put forth by Chairman Julius Genachowski FCC during the agency's open meeting Thursday.

With three Democrats on the commission, it was no surprise that Chairman Julius Genachowski, who was appointed by President Obama, would have enough votes to push the measure through. But it was somewhat surprising that the two Republicans on the commission, who have each expressed disapproval of such regulations, also voted in favor of moving the process forward.

Despite their vote in favor of opening the rule-making process, the two Republican commissioners, Meredith Attwell Baker and Robert McDowell, also said they dissented on "facts" of the proposal. The commissioners said their votes are for the beginning of a data-gathering process, but they didn't say whether they would vote in favor of regulation that will ultimately be proposed.

In her comments, Baker said she didn't think there was a need for specific rules, because she doesn't see a threat to Internet openness. McDowell said he doesn't think the FCC has the legal authority from Congress to impose such regulation.

The views of the two Republican commissioners is shared by some large Internet service providers. And in the days leading up to the FCC vote, debate heated up to a fever pitch with Net neutrality advocates, Internet companies, such as Google, and venture capitalists all arguing for the need for rules to keep the Net open, while broadband service providers lobbied against over-reaching regulation.

As a general rule of thumb, broadband providers do not like being regulated. But the two biggest phone companies, AT&T and Verizon Communications, have conceded that if regulation is to be adopted, they'd be fine with it being limited to existing FCC open Internet principles, which can be summarized this way: network operators cannot prevent users from accessing lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching nonharmful devices to the network.

But the companies have taken issue with the newly proposed fifth principle, which would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. They have also been concerned with the Chairman's insistence on applying any new regulation to wireless networks as well as wireline networks.

At a high level, it appears that the phone companies got at least some of what they had asked for. The proposal that was presented during the FCC meeting allowed for "reasonable" network management as part of the non-discrimination principle. Genachowski announced that the commission was creating a Technical Advisory Process, "so that the difficult engineering questions we face are fully informed by a broad range of engineers based on sound engineering principles and not on politics." He said this group along with comments from experts in the process would help the commission define "reasonable" network management.

The proposal already identifies blocking child pornography and blocking illegal copyrighted content as a legitimate network management. And the proposal also allows service providers to manage their networks and create new business models built on different tiers of service.

Genachowski's proposal also recognizes that wireless networks have different management requirements than wireline networks. And he promised that the commission would gather information on how best to craft rules that would not hamper innovation in the wireless market.
"Broadband providers must be allowed meaningful latitude to solve the difficult challenges of managing their networks and providing their customers with a high-quality Internet experience," Genachowski said in his statement. "We recognize that there are real congestion and other network-management issues, especially with respect to wireless broadband."

This seems to have satisfied Verizon to some degree.
"The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announced today appears to be a substantial improvement from what we understand was in earlier drafts," Tom Tauke, executive vice president of public affair for Verizon, said in a statement. " This is a better starting point for the discussion of the policies that will govern the Internet."

AT&T's top lobbyist also seemed relieved by what the FCC presented.
"Today's action by the FCC has allayed a number of our concerns, and while there are crucial issues remaining, we are encouraged by the Commission's action," Jim Cicconi, Senior Executive vice president at AT&T. "In particular, we appreciate that Chairman Genachowski has demonstrated that he is open to the industry's concerns and willing to address those he feels have merit."

Comcast, which was reprimanded by the FCCfor violating its open Internet principles when it was caught throttling Bit Torrent traffic, said it doesn't believe regulations are needed, but it also appreciates how the process is being handled. Comcast is currently challenging the FCC's enforcement authority of its open Internet principles in court.

AT&T and Verizon also said they didn't think regulation was necessary, and Verizon's Tauke expressed concern that new regulation could unwittingly harm Internet innovation.

"After listening carefully to comments from all of the advocates of regulation, one thing remains clear: The Internet ecosystem is serving consumers very well, and there is no problem that requires new government regulation," Tauke said. "As we engage in this process, we remain concerned that the unintended consequences of regulation could bring substantial harm to consumers and the ability of the Internet sector to innovate, contribute to economic growth and productivity, create new jobs, and deliver social benefits to our nation. "

As expected advocacy groups, such as the Open Internet Coalition, Public Knowledge, and Free Press, were happy with the vote.

The comment period on the proposal will last 120 days or about six months, at which point the FCC's staff will sift through the comments and begin crafting the rules that will be debated among and voted on by the five FCC commissioners.

FCC sets Internet regulation in motion | Signal Strength - CNET News


********************************************

Lets keep the Internet open from control by the telecoms!
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
33,135
Reaction score
58,230
I've spent most of my working life in the Telecom and Datacom business, and I think that Net Neutrality regulations are utter bullsh!t...This really p!sses me off. Companies build their networks to gain an advantage over their competitors...they invest large amounts of capital, they pay huge fees to the government and they are going to be forced to carry competitor's traffic across their networks in the name of fairness and neutrality?

Net Neutrality laws and regulations can also be used to control the media, limit freedom of the press, stifle free expression and control corporate profits...it's a modern version of the fairness doctrine. It's pure unadulterated crap...that's my opinion and that's all I've got to say about this.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
33,135
Reaction score
58,230
McCain Introduces Bill to Block FCC's Net Neutrality Rules - PC World

McCain Introduces Bill to Block FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

Grant Gross, IDG News Service

U.S. Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the U.S. Federal Communications Commission from creating new net neutrality rules, on the same day that the FCC took the first step toward doing so.

McCain on Thursday introduced the Internet Freedom Act, which would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications. Net neutrality rules would create "onerous federal regulation," McCain said in a written statement.

The FCC on Thursday voted to begin a rulemaking process to formalize net neutrality rules. The rules, as proposed, would allow Web users to run the legal applications and access the legal Web sites of their choice. Providers could use "reasonable" network management to reduce congestion and maintain quality of service, but the rules would require them to be transparent with consumers about their efforts.

The new rules would formalize a set of net neutrality principles in place at the FCC since 2005.

McCain, an Arizona Republican, called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an "already anemic" job market in the U.S. McCain was the Republican challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2008 election, and Obama has said net neutrality rules are among his top tech priorities.

McCain protested the FCC's proposal that wireless broadband providers be included in the net neutrality rules. The wireless industry has "exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation," McCain said in the statement.

"Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation," McCain said. "It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

It's unclear whether the legislation would pass. Democrats, who generally support net neutrality rules, have majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but in recent days, more than 70 House Democrats have written the FCC expressing concern over net neutrality regulations.

Elsewhere, reaction to the FCC's decision was mixed.

Supporting net neutrality rules:

-- "Network neutrality protects the fundamental rights of Americans in using the Internet and accessing content, applications, and services of their choice. A well-reasoned network neutrality policy also ensures a level playing field for companies large and small as they create an online presence, and will continue to foster the entrepreneurial innovation found not only in corporate office suites, but in college dorms across the country." -- Statement from Senators Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, and Olympia Snowe, Maine Republican.

-- "It is clear to us that at the end of the proceeding, consumers and innovators will benefit from an open and nondiscriminatory Internet. As a result, the economy will benefit in the future, as it did in the past, from the stability of an Internet that grants equal opportunity to all to participate in an open Internet environment." -- Statement from Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a digital rights group.

-- "This is a down payment on creating a digital democracy. Today's vote to begin the process of requiring nondiscrimination insures, among other things, that large internet providers will be unable to block or throttle speech from competitors or those who disagree with them. The nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed fostered unprecedented opportunities for political and artistic expression." -- Statement from Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a media reform and digital rights group.

Opposed to net neutrality rules:

-- "I remain concerned ... that the FCC is poised to take intrusive action into a well-functioning Internet ecosystem without either the demonstrated need or clear legal authority to do so. I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits." -- Statement from Barbara Esbin, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank.

-- "As the FCC's Broadband Task Force said recently, it could take $350 billion to build next-generation broadband across America, and most of that money will have to come from the private sector and companies like Comcast. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow." -- Statement from David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast

-- "I understand there is a regulatory revival climate in Washington under the Obama Administration, but the FCC's launch of a rulemaking proceeding to adopt new Internet regulations stands out as an example of a proposed regulation in search of a problem that will then search for a solution to address the non-problem. At the FCC meeting, there was absolutely no evidence presented by the FCC's staff of any market failure or pattern of marketplace abuses. It is risky business for regulators to mess with a technologically dynamic environment that is working well for American consumers and the economy." -- Statement from Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
Letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski Supporting Open Internet Rules

October 19, 2009
The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Dear Chairman Genachowski:

We write to express our support for your announcement that the Federal Communications Commission will begin a process to adopt rules that preserve an open Internet. We believe a process that results in common sense baseline rules is critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness.

For most of the Internet’s history, FCC rules have ensured that consumers have been able to choose the content and services they want over their Internet connections. Entrepreneurs, technologists, and venture capitalists have previously been able to develop new online products and services with the guarantee of neutral, nondiscriminatory access by users, which has fueled an unprecedented era of economic growth and creativity. Existing businesses have been able to leverage the power of the Internet to develop innovative product lines, reach new consumers, and create new ways of doing business.

An open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail. This allows businesses of all sizes, from the smallest startup to larger corporations, to compete, yielding maximum economic growth and opportunity.

America’s leadership in the technology space has been due, in large part, to the open Internet. We applaud your leadership in initiating a process to develop rules to ensure that the qualities that have made the Internet so successful are protected.

Sincerely,

Jared Kopf
Chairman/President
AdRoll.com

Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com *

Ashwin Navin
Co-Founder, BitTorrent
Founding Partner, i/o Ventures

James F. Geiger
Chairman & CEO
Cbeyond

Craig Newmark
Founder
Craigslist

Jay Adelson
CEO
Digg

Kevin Rose
Founder
Digg

John Donahoe
CEO
eBay, Inc. *

Charles E. Ergen
Chairman & CEO
EchoStar Corporation

Erik Blachford
Former CEO
Expedia

Mark Zuckerberg
Founder & CEO
Facebook

Caterina Fake
Founder
Flickr

Eric Schmidt
CEO
Google, Inc. *

Barry Diller
Chairman & CEO
IAC *

Reid Hoffman
Executive Chairman
LinkedIn

Scott Heiferman
CEO & Co-Founder
Meetup

John Lilly
CEO
Mozilla Corporation

Reed Hastings
Co-Founder & CEO
Netflix, Inc.

Howard Janzen
CEO
One Communications

David Ulevitch
Founder
OpenDNS

Josh Silverman
CEO
Skype *

Stan Glasgow
President & COO
Sony Electronics *

Thomas S. Rogers
President & CEO
Tivo, Inc. *

Evan Williams
Co-Founder & CEO
TwitterGilles

BianRosa
CEO
Vuze, Inc.

Carl J. Grivner
CEO
XO Communications

Steve Chen
Founder
YouTube *

Mark Pincus
CEO
Zynga

* OIC Member companies are indicated by an asterisk.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
Kiss unlimited internet goodbye.

Only if the telecoms have their way.

Open Internet Coalition: Why an Open Internet

"Think of the Internet as a superhighway for information where anyone – from Apple’s iTunes to a garage band distributing songs on their own home page -- can gain access to the road. Both the big player and the new entrant can reach individuals, anywhere, on equal footing. But now, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to change the rules and put up toll booths on the Internet, despite the fact that all of us already pay hefty, monthly charges for our DSL, cable and fiber optic connections to the Internet.


If the phone and cable companies get their way, websites and online service providers who aren’t able to afford these fees would be put in a slow lane. Large media companies who can pay the tax to use the fast lane would dominate what you can access. The less powerful voices would be lost. That would mean a lot less consumer choice and it would strangle individuals and small companies trying to get their businesses off the ground. The alternative is net neutrality. Simply, net neutrality guarantees that broadband networks cannot use their networks to give preferential fast lane access to any content provider, nor can they slow down content or services that are unable to pay. The Open Internet Coalition seeks to ensure that the transmission of internet traffic remains open, accessible and fast, and does not favor one particular brand or type of content over another.

We aren’t seeking anything new or radical – net neutrality was the law of the land from the Internet’s inception until 2005, when the cable and telephone companies successfully lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to change the rules. We want to preserve the best of the Internet: giving consumers greater choice at the lowest possible cost; ensuring that the Internet’s economic engine keeps moving ahead; protecting innovators and small business; and advancing the founding principles of the Internet."
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
33,135
Reaction score
58,230
If I take the risk and borrow money and build out a network to deliver my applications, should I have to open that network up to allow my competitors the ability to deliver their applications over my pipes, even though they have no "skin in the game"?

If google or some other company creates an application that is a bandwidth hog, and that application causes my applications to run slower, or causes me to have to spend more money to handle both their poorly written application and mine...is that fair?

If allowing access to all the third party applications causes performance problems on my network or causes me to have to spend more money to maintain quality of service for my customers on my network...is that fair?

Anybody who has ever managed a network knows what the options are for improving QOS. I can either build out more bandwidth, or I can police/control the applications running across the network. Either way, it costs money. Who pays for it? The network operator or the application provider?

Is there anybody here who thinks that the internet has been anything other than fair so far? Is there anyone here that believes that they are not getting access to applications, information, data, etc., that they want and that the evil telephone companies and cable companies are preventing them access to said information/applications? Is there anyone here that believes that the Federal Gov't needs to be involved in the day to day operations of the internet, or wants to allow the gov't to regulate the usage of the internet? You may not care if it's Obama and his team involved in the regulation, but what happens when the Republicans take control of gov't again? Will you still have the same feelings you have now?

This is a big deal for everyone involved, from those involved in delivering content, applications, information, news, etc. It's the very lack of regulations that have allowed the internet to grow to what it is today and we should all be wary of gov't intervention.

Tim Wu is a proponent of Net Neutrality, but he does a pretty good job of explaining it too.
Network Neutrality FAQ
Post Tech - Chorus Against Net Neutrality Grows
Net neutrality: Good for a few, but bad for most (WTN News)
Some Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality - PC World
Democrats Urge Caution on Net Neutrality, Too - Reviews by PC Magazine
‘Blue Bell’ Democrats Ask FCC to Tone It Down on Net Neutrality - Digits - WSJ
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
If I take the risk and borrow money and build out a network to deliver my applications, should I have to open that network up to allow my competitors the ability to deliver their applications over my pipes, even though they have no "skin in the game"?

If google or some other company creates an application that is a bandwidth hog, and that application causes my applications to run slower, or causes me to have to spend more money to handle both their poorly written application and mine...is that fair?

If allowing access to all the third party applications causes performance problems on my network or causes me to have to spend more money to maintain quality of service for my customers on my network...is that fair?

Anybody who has ever managed a network knows what the options are for improving QOS. I can either build out more bandwidth, or I can police/control the applications running across the network. Either way, it costs money. Who pays for it? The network operator or the application provider?

The end user... us ... that who is paying for it and has been paying for it, the ISP subscriber. The hardware of the network is just that, hardware. It is the equal access of applications that has made the Internet grow and become as successful as it is. Innovation on the internet, the new business models that are developing, the ability for individuals like you and me, to be entrepenerual will be lost because of the domination of the 3 major telecom companies.

What the telecoms want to do is collect money now from both ends and throttle access to both ends. This is freedom? No this will equal more control than the government ever had. The telecoms want to regulate service based on Internet content. No thank you.

For example, Verizon had already begun rolling out its FiOS fiber optic Internet service in 2004, while net neutrality was in place. They plan to spend $23 billion to extend this network to 18 million homes across the country by 2010. Clearly, the issue of investment is dictated by customers and revenues, not net neutrality.

Is there anybody here who thinks that the internet has been anything other than fair so far? Is there anyone here that believes that they are not getting access to applications, information, data, etc., that they want and that the evil telephone companies and cable companies are preventing them access to said information/applications? Is there anyone here that believes that the Federal Gov't needs to be involved in the day to day operations of the internet, or wants to allow the gov't to regulate the usage of the internet? You may not care if it's Obama and his team involved in the regulation, but what happens when the Republicans take control of gov't again? Will you still have the same feelings you have now?

The government has been involved with the Internet since its inception. In 1992 I was accessing government sites from government run sites. This isn't a partisan issue, although many are trying to make it out to be.

Because of throttling of my DSL access at home, I do have problems with some apps. But how is my paying more for the service I used to get unthrottled changing anything? It doesn't. Just as higher interest rates on secured loans does not minimize risk. Its a fallacy.

This is a big deal for everyone involved, from those involved in delivering content, applications, information, news, etc. It's the very lack of regulations that have allowed the internet to grow to what it is today and we should all be wary of gov't intervention.

Tim Wu is a proponent of Net Neutrality, but he does a pretty good job of explaining it too.
Network Neutrality FAQ
Post Tech - Chorus Against Net Neutrality Grows
Net neutrality: Good for a few, but bad for most (WTN News)
Some Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality - PC World
Democrats Urge Caution on Net Neutrality, Too - Reviews by PC Magazine
‘Blue Bell’ Democrats Ask FCC to Tone It Down on Net Neutrality - Digits - WSJ

Yes this is a big deal.
 

snaredrum

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
23,062
Reaction score
13,838
god DAMN you americans are funny. you proclaim capitalism as the be all and end all UNTIL it encroaches on something you personally care about... :laugh2:
 

USP45Tim

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,588
Reaction score
308
god DAMN you americans are funny. you proclaim capitalism as the be all and end all UNTIL it encroaches on something you personally care about... :laugh2:

USP45Tim thanks you for this useful post. :thumb:

DU is that way -------------------------->
 

snaredrum

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
23,062
Reaction score
13,838
snaredrum thanks USP45Tim for his thanks!

don't worry, i agree that this issue is a bad thing :)
 

USP45Tim

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,588
Reaction score
308
Mostly any kind of "regulation" is a bad thing. :laugh2: But thanks for the clarification. :D
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,931
Reaction score
24,468
Comcast had an absolute monopoly in NJ until FIOS came along... so instead of 8mb download, 2mb upload, I get 25mb DL, 15mb UL.. for $20 cheaper a month.

Hurray competition!
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
Comcast had an absolute monopoly in NJ until FIOS came along... so instead of 8mb download, 2mb upload, I get 25mb DL, 15mb UL.. for $20 cheaper a month.

Hurray competition!

The FCC is unconstitutional to begin with it, Fuck them.

3 companies do not make for competition.

Consider this. You live county along the shore and depend on tourism. You have a little bed and breakfast along the beach. Now you and all the people pay taxes to have your county roads maintained and upgraded.

The county now decides that in addition to taxes, they are going to put up tolls on all the roads in the county. Plus, they will target out of state cars and trucks with heavier tolls since they 'don't have any skin' in the game of local road maintenance and upgrade.

What do you think this will do to your and everybody elses business? Think the out of toursits and out of staters will want to visit?

This is what the telecoms are proposing. But worse because there is no real competition going on, its a duopoly.

Equal opportunity for business will be lost on the Internet. The powerful more wealthy companies will have a distinct edge over startups. The cost of entry will be prohibitive, competition online will be distorted.

The telecoms forget that all they are is a bunch of hardware dealers, the great acheivements and innovations from the Internet came from unfettered access to the apps. They are forgetting who they serve, and that is US!
 

PraXis

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
24,931
Reaction score
24,468
More fucking regulation. God fucking dammit.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
So the courts are going to let the utilities (telcos) tax, control, and wipe out the biggest free market place the world has ever known - the Internet.

I can't believe you guys back this.
 

Latest Threads



Top
')