The FCC's New Version of Net Neutrality

[Mudkip3DS]

So, in case you guys have not been keeping up with the latest news on Net Neutrality, just this morning, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski just set out a major new set of guidelines this morning, preventing ISPs from blocking access to a web service (such as blocking Netflix because it infringes on that ISP's video-on-demand service). However, it leaves many open loopholes in the new regulation, such as in the regulation of wireless internet services: wireless providers would be allowed to "block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks." But, the other thing I am worried about in the new ruling is this major defeating compromise: The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. All this does, in my opinion, is to just open the door for companies to set up tiered data services as in how much data you can use per month, and would simply move innovation up to the higher tiers, leaving us laypersons on the dirt road to be penniless.

 

So, basically, mobile phone companies are allowed to block other applications in favor of their own, in the name of "taking too much bandwidth," and opening up the doors for the ISPs to set up toll roads, with the higher data tiers favoring the content of a select few companies that opt-in.

 

Honestly, I wish that these rules are rejected, if they're just going to be a shortsighted and shorthanded compromise that does not satisfy anyone except for the telcos and ISPs. While I am an ardent supporter of net neutrality, it's an all-or-nothing case for me. Now, maybe one of you could persuade me to the other side?… but I have low hope at the moment.

 

Also, as a major request, please refrain from turning this topic into a trolling flame war. I want to see people actually debate amongst one another, not claw at each other like leetle kitty cats. Thanks.

[Yantelope]

I don't really have a problem with companies controlling what you can and can't do on their services. I do have a problem with the improper or deceptive marketing of it. I know my friend uses Clear as his ISP. They advertise unlimited high speed internet but if you read the terms of service there is language describing what "unlimited" means. Basically they just throttle the crap out of him if he uses bittorrent at all. If they want to throttle people then they should have the ability to do that but it should be much more clear that throttling is part of the service agreement.

[TheForgetfulBrain]

It's opening the flood gates to closing down the 'wild west' nature of the web.

 

It will be just as policed and restricted as anything else eventually.

[Pheermee]

I predict many many underground networks springing up.

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm confused by this poll. The guidelines don't have to go through congress, do they? I don't know about the FCC specifically, but most agencies have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations within their area without congress having to approve each new set.

[c hoertjes]

Kips, you are way too smart.

[Yantelope]

Sooner or later the internet will be policed just like every other wilderness; at lest, that's what history would indicate.

[Pheermee]

Mud can we get Sauce?

[Mudkip3DS]

I'm confused by this poll. The guidelines don't have to go through congress, do they? I don't know about the FCC specifically, but most agencies have the authority to promulgate rules and regulations within their area without congress having to approve each new set.

 

I'm not too sure, to be honest. There hasn't been any clear objective statement on what's the actual deal on this new legislation, so right now, I'm just trying to assemble everything piecemeal from all of the news sites reporting on this.

 

So far, I've gotten information from NPR, Wall Street Journal, and a MSNBC op-ed piece (only because Wilson Rothman penned it). I'm still waiting for some good objective analysis on the situation, but until then, I've kind of had to make my own.

Mud can we get Sauce?

 

You mean this kind of sauce?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

So home usage is still going to be fine... but ground was lost in mobile internet? =\

[Pheermee]

Sriracha is good stuff. But I wanted a source.

 

on 4chan sauce=source

[Shadowstep]

They can take this bill and shove it up their ass. Postal services (couriers) don't open your mail and process it according to the contents. They're not placing a higher priority on birthday cards and making smut be processed at a later date, for example. Why should tier 1 providers act any differently? All packets are equal. It shouldn't matter if you're using bittorrent, or gaming, or looking at porn, or sending an e-card, or checking your email. A packet is a packet, regardless of how it's sent or what it's content is.

[Yantelope]

Yeah but the postal service does allow you to purchase "priority mail" and overnight mail. That's exactly what this bill aims to create.

[TheMightyEthan]

Here's my understanding, and this is in very broad strokes. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The FCC has a congressional grant of authority to regulate interstate telecommunication. It must exercise its power in accordance with statutory guidelines, but it has a lot of leeway in deciding just exactly what to do in a given situation. It had previously classified the internet in such a way that it fell outside of the FCC's power to regulate (I believe, but am not sure, that the FCC had said that ISPs were not common carriers). This new FCC regulation reclassifies the internet so that it does have the power to regulate it (again, I believe, but am not sure, that they've reclassified ISPs as common carriers), and then does go on to regulate the ways in which ISPs can limit access to their networks.

 

The process for the agencies promulgating new regulations is arcane, and I'm not going to go into it here, but once the regulation has gone through the proper process within the agency (in this case the FCC) then it doesn't go to congress to approve it, it just goes into effect automatically. Now, people could still challenge the regulation in court on the theory that it violates the FCC's statutory authority, or if congress really doesn't like what the FCC did they could override the decision with a new law, but unless and until one of those things happens, the regulation has full effect.

[Shadowstep]

Yeah but the postal service does allow you to purchase "priority mail" and overnight mail. That's exactly what this bill aims to create.

In my experience, priority and overnight mail is a crock of shit.

[TheMightyEthan]

Wow, you're very angry.

[Shadowstep]

Indeed I am. Paying $30 for overnight shipping and then getting your package 9 days later will do that, but that shouldn't be part of this discussion.

[deanb]

Yeah but the postal service does allow you to purchase "priority mail" and overnight mail. That's exactly what this bill aims to create.

 

But that'd more be more of a comparison to the Dial-Up package, the 1mb/s package or the 100mb/s package etc.

 

First class still isn't dependant on the actual contents of what you're posting.

 

Running the internet on a content-by-content/service-by-service basis is going to create a fractured, unfairly tiered service. Unless you have the funds then you'll be automatically put to the bottom of the pile. Google with their billions will be able to push Youtube to the forefront of any other video service.

The current internet means that if you have an innovative service, and it's something that people want to use, then you can rise to the top. *points to Twitter*

A tiered service would mean that if you have more cash than anyone else, you can essentially buy your way to the top. Why you UPipe video site when Youtube loads much faster?

[Shadowstep]

This video pretty much sums up what I think about net neutrality, but in a more rational and objective way than I could:

[Yantelope]

@Dean, I agree with the scenario you're talking about being bad but I think you're talking about filtering between the same types of data but that doesn't seem to be the intent here. I think this is more related to bittorent traffic vs. netflix traffic vs. web browsing. AT&T doesn't care about you browsing web pages on your iPhone but they won't let you use netflix over 3G.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, as I understand it these regulations preserve net-neutrality for "land-line" type connections, like cable, dsl, dial-up, etc, it's only wireless providers that can prioritize content.

 

Which actually is better than where we are now, where any company can prioritize all it wants, regardless of the connection type.

[deanb]

Ah yeah I'd forgotten you guys have the TV companies, Phone companies and Internet companies all the same people.

I guess that would be a bitch. Especially when you throw in things like Hulu, Skype, youtube, Google Voice etc.

 

Also on the surface it doesn't seem so bad that it's "only" wireless traffic, except that's going to become more n more prevalent. Especially as we shift to 4G and beyond. Already have netbooks with bundled mobile internet contracts, devices like iPads and tablets that are close enough to regular PC's that folks will expect regular 'PC-like' internet.

Mobile internet is only going to become faster and more prevalent over time until it is on par with the wired stuff in use and devices that are enabled with it. And by then you'd now have regulations in place that are based on 3G still being a sub-par internet type used primarily in small shitty phones.

[Yantelope]

I wasn't saying as it related just to wireless. I figure companies want to throttle certain types of traffic regardless of the connection. I do see the conflict of interest though. Hardly seems fair to give Time Warner Cable the power to throttle netflix.

[Mr. McFluffermutton]

The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. All this does, in my opinion, is to just open the door for companies to set up tiered data services as in how much data you can use per month, and would simply move innovation up to the higher tiers, leaving us laypersons on the dirt road to be penniless.

(I'll use Comcast as the example.)

 

What people need to remember is that this isn't necessarily the big bad corporation trying to squeeze every penny out of the consumer, as is often implied. Comcast began regulating bittorrent a while back before the FCC clamped down because of the excessive amounts of bandwidth its users take up. ISPs need to provide the best service they can within the limitations of their networks, and when you have a disproportionally large amount of the network being used by a minority, it's a legitimate concern.

 

If I'm providing service to three people, but one person uses up two peoples' worth of bandwidth, then that's a problem for the other two people, which, in turn, becomes my problem because they're paying me to be their provider. This is even more of a problem for wireless networks, which are far more limited.

 

Whether or not ISPs actually begin with tiered data services is yet to be seen, but other than a ridiculously high 250gb monthly cap Comcast has instituted, I don't know of any signs of ISPs moving in that direction. (For context, the average household uses ~3gb per month. At more than 15gb, I could download Dragon Age: Origins 16 times without hitting the cap.) Obviously a cap isn't good for net neutrality, but in the interest of properly managing a massive network, it is a valid response.

 

I'm all for net neutrality, but I also recognize that it's essentially the enemy of bandwidth. Comcast has (as far as I know) primarily approached net neutrality thusly; as a technological problem, not a business one. Until their actions indicate otherwise, I see no reason to assume we'll be stuck in a capitalized corporate hell. Not yet, anyway.

___

 

On the other hand, this is only the observations of an onlooker. I have no idea what top minds at Comcast or any other ISP are thinking. Just keep in mind that a company as large as Comcast would never want to risk alienating it's consumer base.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Mr. McFluffermutton

[Bouchart]

My understanding is that nothing substantive has actually changed, as of yet.