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."
And who ... (Score:5, Insightful)
decides what is lawful?
McCain (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual McCain has no clue what he's going on about, surprise, surprise.
Re:And who ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges? Based on .. the law?
Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I love this part.
"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."
Wireless has exploded in the past 20 years because the damn technology has only become feasable for mass market computing in the past 20 years.
Re:And who ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Judges? Based on .. the law?
In theory. In practice many times it never reaches a court/judge.
They may have a guess that you MAY break the law, they don't need a judge decision and they can refuse to carry/throtle your packets. The collateral damage (false positives - innocents) may be considerated acceptable, since almost nobody has the money/knowledge/determination to actually go to court.
As far as I see it nothing changes - someone just wants to be seen as righteous, political crap.
Re:And who ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If my ISP's TOS forbids me from running a webserver from my house over my home internet connection, but there is no government law written to prevent it, it appears at this point that this law would trump the TOS. Of course, given the past actions of large ISPs, I wouldn't be surprised if they ignored the law and disconnected customers based on outdated TOS "agreements" (is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?) until a multi-year, multi-bazzillion dollar class-action lawsuit forced them to acquiesce.
But that also begs the question, what legal status will the law give to the ISPs' TOSs? If the law gives them legal effect, what is to prevent ISPs from circumventing net neutrality in their TOS? For example, "by using this service, you agree to surrender your right to host websites, or offer other server-based services, through your ConGlommoISP, Inc. home account, and agree not to hold ConGlommoISP, Inc. liable in the event we disconnect you and charge you a bunch of fees up the wazoo for violating these Terms of Service."
No, I didn't read the proposed law. Yes, this might be answered in there. I'm waiting for someone who can decipher legalese to do a more informed job than I can.
We need document neutrality first (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody hasn't been paying attention. The FCC is already in charge of regulating communications. They've had guidelines for Net Neutrality since 2005. Now they are just going to take those existing guidelines & make them laws so that they can fine companies for not following them. None of this would have happened if said ISPs weren't getting hard-ons over trying to screw-over their customers both big (Google) & small (me & you).
Re:And who ... (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T already does it for their mobile broadband cards (According to them 3gb per month is excessive. So 3gb/month over a 2mbit line (It is more, I know) is only 0.45%)...
government? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Lawful uses" (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how they plan to enforce the "lawful uses"/"lawful content" clause. That could turn out to be a hole big enough to drive a truck through. What if the providers say that the only way to insure that legal content is available to to limit access to the few sites that they have vetted and partnered with.
I can fully understand giving ISPs the right a prevent DDOS and other attacks on the network, but the enforcement of what is lawful should be limited to that, and not be a license or directive to police the sites and protocols allowed on a network.
Something about this bugs me (Score:2, Insightful)
The proposed rules only apply to "lawful content", "lawful applications", "lawful services", and "lawful devices". I'm not sure what I think about this. By way of analogy, do we have laws for our public highway system that limits our use of the road based on what content we carry in our vehicles? Is our use of the roadway illegal if we intend to use something we're carrying for an evil purpose or application? I can see where my vehicle (device) might be unlawfully configured (over the maximum weight limit, for example), and that might be analogous to a lawful network device, but even then, only in so far as it affects use of the network itself, not in any other context.
Why do we need this automatic extension of contexts? It will mean that anything illegal in one context (say, money-laundering), is going to also be automatically illegal in the entirely different context of how it is being conveyed. It would not only be illegal to launder money, but if one uses the Internet, it would be additionally illegal to have merely conveyed instructions to do so.
That we will get all manner of unintended, unhappy side consequences out of this mixing of contexts seems almost guaranteed.
Re:Drudge (Score:1, Insightful)
Please turn in your libertarian credentials at the desk on your way out.
There is no such thing as a market failure. There is only government failure. Want to know why cell phone services are expensive here? Because if you start your own cell phone company, the FCC puts you in jail.
Re:government? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Net neutrality" has nothing to do with freedom of speech. RTFA.
Re:Drudge (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm libertarian leaning, and after much internal struggle, I also concluded that I support the "concept" of network neutrality.
It's extremely unfortunate that the only institution in the U.S. with enough power to enforce something like that is the Federal Government. With that in mind, I do not trust any "implementation" of network neutrality that the D.C. crowd will come up with. They may give a piece of legislation a nice label, but you can be sure that in the end, the big money special interests will get everything they want. Our government is currently unwilling to pass any major legislation, or even enforce existing laws that might benefit the average citizen at the expense of wealthy special interests.
It sucks, but I think that we're on our own here. Hopefully we can generate enough backlash against corporations that start throttling bandwidth, discriminating based on data type, content, source or destination to make them reconsider their practices. If we have to put our trust in D.C. we're screwed.
Re:McCain (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh hey, stupid? The telcos barely invest in infrastructure as it is, and they've grifted over 200 billion from us in public money and rate hikes for upgrades they never even planned to deliver. Those 'little companies', which include content providers, add value to the infrastructure, which is kind of the point. (But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably way over your head.) Competition between ISPs would encourage them to actually invest some of the obscene goddamn mountains of money they've been siphoning off of us into their networks, which is something that we honestly don't have now. They have no incentive to innovate! They have no incentive to even try, and nothing to prevent them from hike-hike-hiking those rates without delivering anything better in return for it. (Just look at Comcast, sweet Jesus.) Also, look at how much it costs to place a landline international call here versus, uh, anywhere else in the industrialized world. We're so far behind the curve it's not even funny.
I'll keep my unintended consequences. Thanks to that free market bullshit you're smoking, I'm already used to it!
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
With incredibly stiff government regulation.. The companies screamed and moaned about E911, but now, they have apps that take advantage of knowing where you are. (and tout a cell as a safety device when traveling).
They screamed about number portability. yet they now all encourage you to port your number to them. (Would the iphone have been as successfull if everyone had to ditch their old numbers?)
Re:McCain (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the internet has been fine so far does not mean that it will be fine in the future... As the internet provides more and better competition to the traditional services of the Telecoms and Cable COs they will have more and more incentive to use there control over the network to crush their competitors or to extort companies to pay for fast lane service over their portion of the network. If their allowed to do that the internet will stop being a free market. The providers will still charge customers for the last mile, but inside the cloud you packets will be free to go as fast as the network can handle.
You don't want your home service to be come outrageously expensive, being charged by the megabyte do you?
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
the FCC has no authority to regulate the internet
Sillyness, Dave. That's like saying the FAA has no authority to regulate airplanes, only airports.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
Re:government? (Score:4, Insightful)
The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality" I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?
Re:government? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you sit there with a stright face (I assume you have a straight face) and say this is a government takeover of the internet?
All this is saying is that your ISP, which you have practically no choice of who it is (at best a choice between one DSL and one cable TV Co.) can't decide which websites you can visit at the full bandwidth you paid for.
Let me assume you are a republican and like to visit foxnews.com. What if your ISP got into marketing agreement with MSNBC and throttled its competitors, including foxnews.com, so much it became almost unusable. Would that be OK in your book?
The ISPs should not have the power to decide what web sites and net services you can reasonably visit/use. If there were true competition in the ISP market, then maybe so. But that is not the case, and probably will never be the case. That is why we need net neutrality regulations.
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"2. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice;",
but you are talking about
"3. Would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from connecting to and using on its network the user’s choice of lawful devices that do not harm the network;".
I would tend to view a webserver as a lawful application rather than a device, but I suppose the courts could interpret it the other way. But even so, the text (which isn't the actual proposal, but a summary, so I might be wrong) states "devices that do not harm the network", rather than "devices that MAY harm the network", implying that the ISP would have to demonstrate damage of some sort. IOW, it seems to state that a lawful device is fine until it harms the network, which seems like it would place the burden of proof on the ISP.
The next question is what consitiutes "harm"?
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
is it really an agreement if it gets shoved down your throat?
Yes, because unless you were dealing with Vito Corleone, nobody forced you to accept it. There's a difference between "take this or leave it, we don't care" and "either your brains or your signature will appear on this contract"
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
Government cannot do ANYTHING of any significance without this kind of corruption. That is the single best reason to keep government out of it.
Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are these consumers? I want to see one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Robert Mcdowell:
"Consumers are telling the marketplace that they don't want networks that operate merely as 'dumb pipes,'" he said. "Sometimes they want the added value and efficiency that comes from intelligence inside networks as well."
I wish I could interview politicians, "You just made that shit up didn't you?"
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I generally abhor government interference in private business, but when a severe power imbalance exists between consumer and provider, there may be justification for leveling the playing field a little. I supported McCain in the last election, but I don't support his anti-neutrality proposal.
Re:government? (Score:5, Insightful)
"and the banks are in even worse shape than before"
It boggles the mind that you just painted big banks as somehow a "victim" in this and got moderated informative.
The only big banks that are in bad shape are the ones who should have collapsed due to their own stupidity(Citigroup) or which acquired large businesses which should have collapsed due to their own stupidity(B of A buying Countrywide and Merrill Lynch). JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are in better shape than they have ever been. Goldman Sachs was a huge beneficiary of billions of dollars that came at the expense of tax payers, and they got it no strings attached(through AIG bailout or from the Fed).
If you are a big bank the Fed and Treasury have made it incredibly easy to make money. Big banks can borrow money from the fed at zero percent(a.k.a. free money) and are pouring it in to stocks and bonds which are, as a result, in another huge bubble and they are making huge profits. There are a lot of small banks in really bad shape but that is because they drank the koolaid the big banks handed them and no one is throwing them a life line for the most part. The price of this free money and making Goldman Sachs rich, they are destroying the dollar and wiping out the savings of everyone who is holding dollars instead of riding the new bubble on the stock market.
The last couple of years of rampant greed on Wall Street probably should have clued you in there is a problem with Libertarianism. You can certainly argue a factor in the recent collapse was due to government intervention but Wall Street, has for nearly 30 years, managed to completely eviscerate any regulation of their organized crime syndicate and its pretty obvious if you actually let Wall Street function with no oversight they would devour the world. The are a legal organized crime syndicate at this point, load sharking and usury being their specialty.
The only positive about implementing Libertarianism lately is you would have let AIG, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GM, Chrysler, GE etc. end in Chapter 11. It would have have ended in the Greatest Depression ever seen but if you are going to have free market Capitalism either you let stupid companies fail or you eliminate moral hazard and without moral hazard Capitalism ends up completely broken which is where we sit today (regulating exec pay is a feeble attempt to restore moral hazard, doomed to fail).
Bottom line the problem isn't government regulating pay at failed companies, its that the government didn't let them end in Chapter 11.
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fictitious far right Republican response: Hell no, of course that's not right! That's Obama propaganda marketing! More evidence of him trying to destroy America from within the white house to turn us into a socialist state where the government decides how much money everybody can make, what we can eat and what we can watch! He needs to be stopped!
On the other hand, if the question was posed like so:
Fictitious far right Republican response: It doesn't matter, the government does not have the right to tell businesses how to operate! Businesses can get into any agreements that they want and the government has to stay out of it! If msbnc viewers don't like it they can change ISPs! Vote with your wallet, that's the American way!
Judges? The Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Judges? Based on .. the law?
The problem with relying on judges is that you're more likely to get a ruling like Kelo than some noble defense of the Constitution. You know, Kelo, the one that declared, yes, governments can seize your private property and transfer it to other private citizens for "the public good".
There's a line in the Bible... "Put not your trust in princes"... that I think could easily apply to judges when it comes to your rights and the Constitution.
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McCain (Score:4, Insightful)
Government cannot do ANYTHING of any significance without this kind of corruption. That is the single best reason to keep government out of it.
Not necessarily: it's possible under some circumstances the corruption involved in a government program is less than the corruption involved in a private-sector program.
Re:And who ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with your supposition. The government is not setting management policy. The government is trying to prevent carriers from making network management policy that could be used to affect public policy.
The "government" gives carriers a lot of leeway by protecting them from liability for the content they carry. Once you let them make traffic management decisions, then you open a can of worms that challenge this policy. It is precisely these policy issues that gives the FCC the right to venture into this kind of regulation.
I am perfectly happy to let Comcast have free reign over network content policy, provided I can sue the shit out of them when they interfere with my content. The same is true for AT&T and other carriers who are driving the opposition to network neutrality.
Re:government? (Score:1, Insightful)
The big banks aren't the victims of TARP, but the smaller, local ones (you know, the ones that actually provide service to average Joes instead of multi-billionaires)got royally screwed by it. They're getting hit hard by the very real recession/depression, and meanwhile they're trying to compete with banks with much lower standards that have gotten billions to bail them out of their risky and foolhardy ventures.
You proved what I believed... (Score:1, Insightful)
Just wanted to point out that you gave excellent background in the first two paragraphs, then argued against Libertarianism in the third. However, you debunked your own argument against Libertarainism in the fourth, proving what I've always believed... That yes, indeed, Libertarianism is the true Capitalism. And with Capitalism comes natural ups and downs, much like with the weather and nature.
In short, you try to argue against Libertarianism but end up proving it the best course of action by the end of your rant. Not sure if that was your intent, but it does say something.
Re:McCain (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a "tu quoque", it's a fallacy of omission.
You are arguing that McCain is "on the take" because he received funding. Yet MANY MANY other received funding and are not supporting McCain's motion.
Your "evidence" does not prove your conclusion.
Re:Can't run XP on SPARC (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to think it's the 50s all over again, not the 60s. And you're just as retarded as McCarthy was. Communism isn't a system of government! It's an economic system. Capitalism isn't a system of government! It's an economic system. Conflating the two results in the meaningless muddy thinking your post is full of.
You were dumb enough to bring up Nazism as an argument. I'll do you one better. Corporate control of government, also known as regulatory capture, has a name too. Mussolini himself named it fascism, in his own writings, and that's what it is. Guess what? That's what we're getting. The US is in no danger of becoming a Nazi state, any more than it's in danger of converting to a communist economy. It IS in danger of becoming a fascist state, and there you sit, advocating more corporate power.
The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created by mankind and the FCC is moving to pass regulations to keep it that way, because the CEO of SBC went on the record claiming Google was stealing from them. It was a blatant lie, a venal attempt to charge people at both ends more money for the exact same service. The Internet is the greatest communication tool ever created and you DARE to use it to post polemics in favor of DESTROYING it?
You complete and utter fool. Stop typing. Stop talking. You don't deserve to use the Internet. You're so stupid you write "communism/socialism" as if they're the same thing. The Internet is about words, and you are a total failure at understanding words. Stop polluting the thoughts of people around you with your failure.
Re:McCain is right, which is surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the event that companies do start charging major sites to carry the traffic then yes it should be passed. Until then they are passing laws that will give more examples of the government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer.
"Leave things alone until the free market fucks it up" is not a good way to pursue public policy.
Example: Credit Default Swaps and Mortgage Backed Securities [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention your bald assertions that this will lead to "government controlling what is on the Internet and does not solve a problem for the consumer" make no sense at all. If you think that your net connection being subject to the whims of a corporation, with no recourse, isn't a problem, I can't help you to understand.
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.
First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.
Network management is reasonable if it is used
* To manage congestion on networks
* To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)
* To block unlawful content (child porn)
* To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)
* For "other reasonable network management practices"
The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.
The second exemption to the rules is for "managed services," another hazy area. FCC staff are defining managed services as offerings that are provided over the same networks as regular Internet access but that "differ from broadband Internet access service in ways that suggest a different policy approach." This includes things like voice services and telemedicine, but it's obviously a pretty broad category, and the FCC is asking for guidance on how to define it.
It appears that the agency is looking for ways to let telcos and cable companies offer additional, prioritized services over a single line, things like analog and digital voice, cable TV, and low-latency connections for medical use.
The rules apply to every Internet connection, wired and wireless, though what is "reasonable" may vary by connection type and even by network speed. As Commissioner Michael Copps put it in his supporting remarks, "What is reasonable today might be unreasonable tomorrow--and vice versa" as networks expand."
So, it isn't like this is truly in the best interest of the consumer only as it seems to be on surface.
While I want something to ensure that there IS net neutrality, I'm not sure if this is the way to do it. Nor am I sure that the FCC even HAS the authority to regulate the internet in this method? Wouldn't legislation be the more direct way to set the rules in stone? The FCC can change their mind and rules will be bent depending on who is in charge that year....we've seen it before.
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That depends on the judge interpreting the law. One could argue that the law dictating that they not block lawful content implies the ability to block unlawful content. Otherwise, what is the point of the law?
This is why poorly worded, vague laws, no matter how well intentioned, are the most harmful of them all.
Re:And who ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You need not have that fear. It will not happen. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. It's simply a lie perpetrated by fearmongering radical right-wing neoconservatives to protect that which they value most: the corporations that give them money to lie on the air.
Now that that's cleared up, do you have any realistic concerns?