FCC Begins Crafting Net Neutrality Regulations 297
ceswiedler writes "The FCC has begun crafting rules for network neutrality. The full proposal hasn't been released yet, but according to their press release (warning, Microsoft Word document) carriers would not be allowed to 'prevent users from sending or receiving the lawful content,' 'running lawful applications,' or 'connecting and using ... lawful devices that do not harm the network.' There will be a three-month period for comments beginning January 14, followed by 2 months for replies, after which the FCC will issue its final guidelines." Reader Adrian Lopez notes that US Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain has introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications." McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
Update: 10/24 16:32 GMT by KD : jamie found a Reuters story reporting that the Sunlight Foundation has revealed John McCain to be Congress's biggest recipient of telco money over the last two years — "a total of $894,379..., more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:McCain (Score:2, Informative)
Re:We need document neutrality first (Score:4, Informative)
It's not ODF, but the FCC does release all documents in pdf and plain text. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf [fcc.gov] or http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.txt [fcc.gov]
Re:McCain (Score:4, Informative)
Yup, I'm quite sure the $216,938 from AT&T for his 2010 campaign committee has absolutely nothing to do with his principled stance on this issue.
source [opensecrets.org]
Re:McCain (Score:4, Informative)
So? You need to drill down and see who AT&T donated money, too.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076 [opensecrets.org]
You'll be surprised.
Re:Drudge (Score:2, Informative)
No, if you are an anarcho-capitalist there is no such thing as a market failure. Libertarians that believe in *some* government can recognize that lack of competition is a market failure. Certain industries that have a large barrier to entry or are inelastic are prime targets for monopolistic abuse. Industries such as water, power, roads networks etc. You know, the commons.
Adam Smith said that for an economy of "perfect liberty" you must have competition and the laws of supply and demand. Thomas Jefferson tried to get a "restriction against monopolies" into the bill of rights (but failed). You'll find no two individuals more concerned with the idea of liberty.
are you stupid ? (Score:3, Informative)
the corporations dont want to leave internet 'as it is'. they want to CHANGE it, so they will be able to run their networks as cable networks. this is why you need net neutrality rules. net neutrality rules are no different than rules that govern the highways -> no highway administration can decide who passes over the road or charge any traffic according to source, not the type and amount.
get a fucking brain and realize what's going on before purporting knee jerk alan greenspanist comments.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406601&cid=29770311 [slashdot.org]
Re:And who ... (Score:2, Informative)
Innovation? (Score:3, Informative)
I used to see a heck of a lot more of that when there were easily a dozen or more local ISPs offering Internet access in my area. Once the telcos were allowed to cut them out of the picture, innovation has become non-existent.
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Informative)
Are you high? This story definitely is about the FCC, NOT Canada.
And yes, the GP had an insightful observation. Common carriers get that status because they don't filter things based on content. I.E. AT&T doesn't get charged with child pornography because one of their subscribers sent CP on their network. If carriers choose to use deep packet inspection technology to determine what is in it so that it can decide how speedily it will get routed, maybe AT&T will find themselves more culpable to the content they transmit on their network. I'm sure this is one unintended consequence the carriers have considered but view as unlikely.
The key here is that broadband currently use pricing structures based on bandwidth levels(768/1.5Mb, 1.5/3Mb, etc.) and market those as "always connected" or "always available". Yet, those same companies who sold their products as unlimited use are really trying to find ways to prevent the people who utilize their bandwidth to the fullest capacity from doing so. Sending reset packets to bittorrent users is just the tip of the iceberg. Slightly less benign but very telling of the power carriers have is that some have chosen to redirect DNS lookup failures to their own revenue generating portals or search pages. Whats next?
The key here is that broadband market competition in many areas is very limited. Consumer outrage at bad corporate policy has no effect - if they want broadband, they may have just one or two choices. Between subsidies, right of ways and the fact that broadband infrastructure is a natural monopoly like water or sewer is, ISP's should have a responsibility to deliver our network traffic to the intended destination without inspecting anything other than the IP data.
Users also need to understand the legal ramifications of their ISP inspecting all of their traffic. As noted by the FCC, the SCOTUS recently made a decision that right to privacy is dictated by whether there is a reasonable expectation for privacy. Users typically expect their internet traffic to be private, yet the ISP's use their Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policies to dictate that your traffic will be inspected and could be kept on record by them. The ramifications to your 4th amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure are huge. If users expect their internet traffic to be non-private because their ISP inspects their traffic, this could allow the government to get access to privileged information such as attorney-client communication, or an email to your pastor about a crime you committed and this could then be used in a court of law.
If left to themselves, the communications companies will urge the FCC and legislators to enact only policies, rules and laws that benefit them. The legislators and the FCC will not do this for us.
Go to the FCC. File your comment. Be heard.
Re:And who ... (Score:1, Informative)
I can't watch netflix or hulu reliably on my home internet connection. The provider where I live (Cable One) sucks in general, but it's pretty apparent, they are throttling streaming video sites. Their FAQ/TOS states they will throttle upon excessive use to 1/2 your designated connection, which is still over 2x the rate for the videos in question. What a load of crap.