FTC Says 'Slow Down' on Net Neutrality 106
Bushido Hacks writes "The Washington Post reports that the Federal Trade Commission has fumbled the Network Neutrality Act, again, as of this past week. However, the FTC defended its actions saying that their decision was not a give-in to the big telecom and cable companies. Instead, the FTC report urges caution on Network Neutrality Regulation. While this news is disappointing, the FTC's decision appears to be thought out and a message to remind people to not let the subject of Net Neutrality be abandoned by the general public so corporations could undermine the interest of consumers. We discussed the row this created, but with constant stalling tactics being employed here how long will it be before net neutrality opponents craft their own legislation?"
Let them get rid of their own network neutrality. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the networks go to hell in a flaming hand basket, what would it take for Google to start lighting up fiber they already own? Get a few major metropolitan areas wired up, get word out, and consumers will begin switching in droves. It wouldn't take much pressure beyond that to wake up the telecoms and get them right back into the game.
I'm no free market blind follower, but this seems like a situation when a viable and large enough competitor is sitting in the wings, ready to smack the wannabe monopolists upside the head if they attempt their backwater cousin fucking ideas of raping the connections we pay for.
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, because Google, who is in bed with the CIA, would be a MUCH better choice. Google will probably be the Internet 2(read Net Neutralized)bringer of doom. What else would they need all that fiber and all those data centers?
The internet should not be run by a handful of corporations, or one corporation. The Internet should stay the decentralized network that it is.
Simply giving control to a single company, Google(as you seem to be OK with), is not the answer. if anything it is worse than five companies.
Just my two cents.
The Captain
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, it plays out like this: Major players start degrading service of non-paying services, Google enters the market and starts providing service that people expect, gaining them an immediate large share of the market. After the major players get told that it's too bad, and that Google isn't violating any anti trust laws, they ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, Google does some cool stuff (gmail, google maps (I really like the hybrid setting), picasa, etc), but at the massive ammount of information they log on everyone is very scary.
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Or maybe build something into the new discussion system so that we can see who moderates each message. Anyone who thinks the parent is flamebait is quite obviously both stupid and insane.
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:4, Interesting)
My interest lies elsewhere, though. We have an election coming and numerous candidates have already declared intent, raised millions of dollars, and started building their platforms.
Will one of them have the foresight to make this more than a John-McCain-style-uninformed-soundbyte type issue?
If so, I am ready to start thinking about actually voting in this election. No one candidate can reverse the course of the war in Iraq, no one candidate can fix healthcare/welfare/the educational system. One candidate can, however, help America understand how high the stakes are for this particular issue.
Believe me... I would much rather see some sort of movement by all candidates to drop the party lines and attempt to fix the war and all the other issues I detailed above. Failing that, I guess I will consider voting for any candidate that shows an understanding of this issue because the impact on our future can be so incredibly far reaching.
The candidates now have some added time to weigh in on this issue. I'll be watching.
Regards.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Visit youtube and search for Ron Paul.
Google Ron Paul.
The more you find out about Ron Paul the more you will regain hope in restoring the Republic and participating in our democracy.
Ron Paul (Score:1)
The more you find out about Ron Paul the more you will regain hope in restoring the Republic and participating in our democracy.
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 for president and if I get the chance to vote for him in 2008 I will. Though I'm currently registered "No Party" Preference" I'll even change it to "Republican" just before the primary so I can vote for him. Of course I'll change it back afterwards.
FalconRe:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:5, Informative)
Most people do NOT have a choice when it comes to broadband. In many areas with relatively dense populations, the local cable/telco provider is given a monopoly, either by the town or the developer.
Ontop of that, the Internet as we know it, is an oligopoly run by a handful of national providers who get their bandwidth from a cartel of 9 Tier 1 ISPs and half-a-dozen or so important Tier 2 ISPs.
Because of this, no matter what you & the GP seem to think will happen, Google can't fly in and save the day by lighting up dark fiber. The "free" market is not so free.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The market is perfectly free.
How does "government enforced monopoly" translate to "free market"? The telcoms and cable companies ARE monopolies (by ANY definition of that term) and these monopolies are granted to them by the federal and state government in exchange for providing public interest services, like reduced fees for low income people, public access television, rural telephone service, etc. Much of the infrastructure they use (telephone poles, cable lines, etc.) were/are constructed and maintained by the government.
It's just
Re: (Score:1)
I've worked there. It's run like a dungeon. But that's neither here nor there, because the Post Office is only quasi-governmental. They have to keep themselves afloat, and as such, they're much more efficient.
interstate highway system
Arguably the biggest cause of the pollution that is causing our home planet to slowly become less and less livable. Not an intended consequence, to be sure, but if you want to make a huge mistake, you need a huge plan.
Social Security
It's hanging on by a thread, b
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably the biggest cause of the pollution that is causing our home planet to slowly become less and less livable.
And you're arguing that private enterprise is doing more in America to fight pollution that the government? I think you're right here in the sense that most of the new technologies that are eventually going to replace fossil fuel are being developed and deployed by the private sector. For example, I definitely think that the EPA should be more stringent with it's enforcement and that Congress should pass tough new emissions regulation. But it's
It's hanging on by a thread, barely pays out enough to live, ... Yes, the wage cap on the Social Security withholdings means the wealthiest people don't have to support the system).
I agree. We don't spend enough on social welfare programs and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
There are many?
Name some.
...
The only viable way to seriously change the market is wireless... because it will break the physical monopoly on the last-mile. However, this assumes that the existing telecom/cable giants aren't the ones rolling this tech out, which isn't a safe assumption to make.
We can discuss spectrum allocations - part of the spectrum is unlicensed, the rest
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:2)
people can quite easily distinguish "shitty" from "awesome"
Consumers couldn't give a rat's ass about this topic. This weekend millions stood outside mall stores and cheered each other as they consumed AT&T exclusive iPhones. The FTC is foot dragging because on one hand you have Apple and AT&T fostering a real (F)TRADE(C) phenomena, and on the other you have a few activists. Guess who's lobbyists buy FTC bureaucrats the most meals.
ready to smack the wannabe monopolists upside the head if they attempt their backwater cousin fucking ideas of raping the connections we pay for
Aim those smacks with care. What fraction of this audience just pwned Net Neutrality with their disposable income?
and low bandwidth and one run by, say, Google.
Google i
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:2)
cable and isp (Score:2)
You won't want to switch your ISP because you get it at a discount from the same people you get your cable from
No I don't, I get my net access from a different company than I get my cable from. And when WiMax is widely available and relatively cheap I may switch my isp. Also I don't get my phone service from either one either.
FalconRe:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:5, Insightful)
What would it take? Well, a hell of a lot more money and influence than Google or any other company has.
Light up some fibers? You think that is all that it takes? It appears you have a poor understanding of the telecommunications infrastructure. Since the telcos and cable companies are no longer required to share their lines, Google (or whoever) would have to dig up every street and yard in the United States to offer a competing service. Google doesn't have that kind of money, the cities wouldn't let them do it and granny wouldn't let them dig up her rose garden. Furthermore, there is currently no wireless technology that can provide competitive bandwidth on a large scale.
While it's true that Google has bought up some dark fiber, that only allows them to bypass the core network to a certain extent. The key is the last mile and it's locked-up in the hands of the telcos and the cable companies.
It is very naive to believe there is a viable competitor waiting in the wings. There isn't one. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile. It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
4G (WiMAX and others) is coming.
Just not in the next 5-10 years.
Even if Google implemented it tomorrow at the endpoints of their fiber network (to bypass the last-mile), they'll still have to essentially become a Tier 1 ISP with peering agreements to the other big players... and to do so, Google will have to play by their rules.
I'd love to hear how someone can come in and change the nature of the i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is very naive to believe there is a viable competitor waiting in the wings. There isn't one. There isn't going to be one tomorrow, next year or anytime in the foreseeable future. No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile. It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
Wrong. There ARE wireless technologies available that bypass the last mile. In fact, that bypass the last five, ten, sometimes twenty miles. (This is just one example). http://www.trangobroadband.com/products/point_to_m ultipoint_products.shtml [trangobroadband.com]
I have a job site currently that is fed T1 speeds over a wireless signal because the wired infrastructure doesn't exist there. The fact of the matter is that no local companies have the resources to put up transmission towers or get licensing for use of water tow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even if that pans out, it's really not equivalent to what the telcos and cable companies can offer in terms of bandwidth. Plus, home owners have to put up with antennas and powered NIDs.
I agree, in terms of speeds and reliability hard lines will always prove better than wireless. But, if I have to sacrifice my 3Mb/256Kb filtered connection for a 768Kb/128Kb unfiltered connection I will. Once users (even the dumb ones) realize the content they want to access they can't, or that they have to pay extra, they will start looking for alternatives. A great example of this is Satellite vs. Cable. Cable is much more reliable than Satellite but costs more than Satellite on a per channel basis. If
Canopy (Score:2)
No company has the money and influence to duplicate the infrastructure and there are no viable wireless technologies available to bypass the last mile.
Motorola Canopy. Designed for exactly that purpose. I'm sure there are competing products.
It's going to be a duopoly for the foreseeable future and free market economics don't apply.
Rubbish. However the barrier to entry is high and the cable companies and telcos have spent a huge amount of money putting a network in place. Any new entrant to the market is going to have to see long term profitability. If revenue levels are too low they won't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
How 1890s of you. They'll simply deploy a wireless comm module, run power and fiber to it, and be in service. The module will consist of a big-ass industrial computer, an Akami-style accelerator, perhaps a local Google Apps cache, two or more redundant refrigeration modules, and a fold-up phased array antenna
Re: (Score:2)
If you think wireless networks will solve the last mile problem, I've got a really nice bridge to sell you.
The problem isn't that wireless network technology doesn't exist (although it's not perfect), or even that it isn't fast enough (it's pretty fast), but that in the current legal situation with licensed spectrum - there simply isn't enough legal wireless bandwidth to go around. Trying to use a single 802.11g network with ten or twenty other people sucks. WiMax isn't much faster, but it sure let's a bun
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly, which is why I specified a phased-array system [wikipedia.org], like the ones Vivato [vivato.net] makes. Phased-array systems use multiple antennas and mathematical tricks to transmit/receive narrow beams of radio waves. (Each antenna gets a programmable signal delay. Pick the delays right and you can make a flat antenna act like the dish antenna of your choice.) The neat thing is that radio waves don't interact with each other, so you can run many be
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:1)
80% of the Americans on the internet would probably still be happy on dialup. The only reason they all have broadband is because advertising told them to like it.
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:2)
But they have a harder time saying or doing something about it.
We've seen how well this works in other areas, say operating systems, energy, and the media
ahem...
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:2)
Yes, the market will regular everything.
And any websites that say different shouldn't be on the web.
We need net neutrality mandated by law. Period. Telecoms are ALREADY censoring union websites, for example. What is to stop them from censoring websites with political opinions that disagree with the corporate position?
Re:Let them get rid of their own network neutralit (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty one-sided coverage, here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you guys SURE you want the US federal government legislating this?
I have said it before, and I suppose it's time to say it again: Most of the time, when I see someone try to articulate what "network neutrality" means, that they want legislated, they end up with a set of words which, if they were a law, would prevent me from blocking spammers and DDOSers. There are good reasons for which networks are sometimes rather decidedly non-neutral about which traffic they carry, and there are real reasons for which people would like to have the option of paying for guaranteed bandwidth.
Most of the horror stories come down to "what if I only got the sorta dodgy networking I'm currently paying for, but other people were able to buy a better network." Not all; there's real potential for abuse. I just don't think I trust the US federal government to come up with something better, no matter how smart or good the people advocating it are... And honestly, a lot of the advocacy I see is knee-jerk reactions that haven't even bothered to gloss over the question of whether teergrubing should be illegal, or any of the dozens of other technical questions this raises.
Re:Pretty one-sided coverage, here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Something like that should mean that if they attempt to degrade your connection because of a payment a the website or service didn't make and that you are requesting, they are subject to a fine for each instance. So in cases of www.google.com being throttled, if 10,000 people are effected, they can sue for $5000 for each time they are effected, google can sue for 10,000*$5000 for having all those customers effected and the company involved would have to pay 10,000*$5000 to the government.
Lets say it slowed 5 visits down, that's 50,000,000 per incident or 250,000,000 to consumers, 250,000,000 to the government, and $250,000,000 to google. So unless they can make more then $750,000,000 from the deal in 5 turns, it is going to be a loss every time it is tried. But it allows for problems with the network that get fixed without demanding payment from third party people. The wording could probably be trimmed down a bit too. But it doesn't have to be complicated.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, what's to stop all the false claims that people will make just to make a quick buck?
I know it's too much to ask of you all that you just drop your ISPs if they rate-limit a service or become anti-neutrality (imagine a few million nerds screaming "My precious!"), but there are only two things in the US that can stop net neutrality - the free market and the government, an
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find this rationel offensive either. I think the purpose of a fine is to discourage an activity. If they can pay the fine and still profit, they won't be too discouraged.
Re: (Score:1)
He also gave me a bit of insight to where these rules are coming down from and as it happens at
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly am I supposed to do that? Where I live, I have exactly 2 choices for high-speed internet: Verizon (ADSL) and Comcast (Cable). Neither supports network neutrality. Short of moving, is there anything I can do?
Switching to a neutral provider may be an option on the coasts, but here in middle America (Minnesota), its a bit more difficult than it appears.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because DSL and cable do not deliver "guaranteed" bandwidth. They deliver access to a shared resource. I believe Verizon FIOS delivers access to shared bandwidth as well. None of these can make any absolute guarantees as to what is actually available at any point in time other than taking the total available and
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem this legislation is going to fix?
What happens when I want to run a spam filter, which blocks mail from large spam sources, but one of those sources has a single opt-in list that includes "requested information"? Right now, I can point out to my customers that, well, we have a spam filter. Under your wording, I'm in trouble for "interfering with the delivery of services and information". Sounds like a bad law to me.
Try again, and this time explain why we
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. If you don't know why we need this then I have some people who wanna talk to you about some prime beach front property in Arizona. Common, are you serious? Have you followed the situation at all?
Here is a short rundown. At&t, verizon and several other ISPs are wanting to see you internet at advertised speed of 3 megs per secone or faster. They then want to slow certsian websits down based on how popular
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't made a case for this legislation at all. I am well aware of the alleged problem, and frankly, I don't think it's one that needs legislation. I think this is well within the scope of market forces to fix.
Every time someone proposes a "fix", it's worse than the actual problem. The mere fact that we don't like something a company might do does not mean we need legislation.
I am so glad you guys weren't around when New Coke came out. I could see the regular discus
Re: (Score:2)
Then I don't think you understand how the internet works. That or you do understand and think it would be nice to have random companies artificially degraded based on their willingness to pay an extra fee. Currently, You get access, I get access, our computers can talk to each other as much as
Re: (Score:2)
I see no evidence at all that anyone is actually successfully breaking it, or that if they did, that there would be any problem other than people switching providers.
Your proposed language is dangerously vague, overbroad, and implies a sort of hypothetical world in which all traffic is desired. You have not suggested a way to allow people to block or filter unwanted connections when they have good reasons to do so. You have not convinced me that I don't want peo
Re: (Score:2)
When your on covads network, I'm on verizons, At&t slows your traffic down because I didn't pay the fee to them when my traffic passes through their network to get to yours, how is either one of use changing providers going to make a difference? Or better yet, who changes providers when it is covad that slows the traffic down? it is me o
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how I stand on this, as it does pose that interesting problem. Maybe just restrict proveably malicious behaviour.
Your solution doesn't work, though, because it fails on these two points:
1) You have to trace the money
It would be easy, for instance, to have a separate agency that does the actually traffic shaping. These "internet optimizers" could supposedly be independent agencies that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got some (like the article) that make the term basically about QoS - whether you can treat streaming video differently than email. I don't really see what there is to get upset about if service providers prioritize real-time applications over non-realtime applications.
On the other hand, you've got others who make the term about business relationships. I.e. is a service provider o
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, an ISP should not be able to abuse it's last mile monopoly to exclude competition, or to extort other businesses.
If an ISP wants to provide a service to their customers, they should allow any competitor to provide that service. The customer network access and server hosting parts of their business should be completely separate from any additional services they may offer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really, but unfortunately they have been legislating and funding the internet from the get go.
Most of the telcoms have basically been willing to take millions of dollars worth of tax breaks and tax payer money from back in the 90's when they were basically subsidizing fiber roll out.
So in reality, telcoms were and currently are basically government regulated monopolies.
If you don't like net neutrality, they the only real solution woul
Re: (Score:1)
rubbish, you block spammers at the mailserver not at the routers. in fact net neutrality doesn't even apply to YOU, unless you is an isp. DDoS is easy to cover in an unambiguous clause.
"there are real reasons for which people would like to have the option of paying for guaranteed bandwidth."
i'm sur
The FTC needs to shut up! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the same companies that you depend on to actually do anything on the Internet and have relied on since day 1 to do so? Why haven't they already ruined it? Why don't you just stop paying them to ruin the Internet?
How some things get modded up on Slashdot is beyond me. How about: If we pass the wrong type of network neutrality law, there will be 0 profit in expanding broadband access, and while that will make everyone on Slash
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same companies that you depend on to actually do anything on the Internet and have relied on since day 1 to do so?
Why haven't they already ruined it?
Because "network neutrality" was the legal mandate until just a few years ago. "Network Neutrality" has been required of the phone system since at least the AT&T break-up. Until 2005, most home broadband services were regulated by the FCC in the same way as voice calls, thus ensuring that internet packets were treated just as neutrally as voice packets.
So, to answer your question directly - the reason they have not already ruined it is because they've only had about 2 years to reverse some 25 years
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few other restrictions, but letting them charge more for faster service isn't necessarily bad. It is just charging more for the same service and not delivering their promised speeds based on a third party payment that it the real problem.
And it isn't just the conservatives you ha
Re: (Score:2)
Bill O'Reilly's "Radio Factor" program just became available in my area and, out of curiosity, I wanted to hear what all of the fuss was about. From the writings/rantings here on slashdot, I expected to someone who--like GOP talking point readers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity--seems to be merely a mouthpiece for Conservatives and Republicans, but I just c
Keep listening (Score:1, Insightful)
Once you become familiar with his show, a few things start to become apparent. First, Bill is not only intellectually dishonest, but is violently opposed to the concept of intellectually honest. Second, Bill is a religious fanatic- he is the kind of conservative who d
Re: (Score:1)
If you'd heard that phony clown over the long run, you'd know he's just know jumping off the ship - like the rat he is - or jumping aboard the proper vessel -- either way, it's waaaay tooo little, and waaay tooo late. KEither Olbermann rul
The problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's a realistic chance of "average Americans" becoming more informed about these details. I have a number of friends who are software developers, who have almost what DRM is. DRM has been reported on by mainstream press (~300ghits at cnn.com, ~500ghits at foxnews.com, etc), and DRM is something that people sometimes encounter in their daily lives, yet it's still not widely understood.
Trying to explain the details of why TCP's end-to-end principle is good, why it's helped jump-start thi
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, damn you! Maligning the American masses again, are we? Yup, it's always those dummies fault!
Now, just because 53% of Americans polled believe the Cosmos was created only 6,000 years ago, and 49% accept the official 9/11/01 story, and 51% believe the "lone gunman" theory behind the JFK assassination, and 52% believe Bush is the messiah....
Ooohh...wa
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree... sort of. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is more government the solution? (Score:1, Insightful)
Because the thousands and thousands of pages of rules that will have to be written to define "net neutrality" will NOT aid the consumer. Oh, they'll claim to do just that. But it'll be just like the old AT&T monopoly.
Anyone think today's telcom industry is worse for the consumer than the government-regulated days? Why is there such a push to regulate the fastest-growing part of the US economy?
Re: (Score:1)
Why aren't there more WiMax players in the US? I live in a major metropolitan area yet there's no WiMax provider.
Re: (Score:2)
How fast can WiMAX run? Let's say that it (or a replacement in the near future) can consume an entire OC3 (48Mb/sec) and provide service for 1,000 homes in a narrow geographic area. That works out to about 48Kb/sec per home at one connection per home.
You want to call that "broadband"?
Very disappointed in the FTC (Score:5, Insightful)
Most states don't have 20 or 30 options for highspeed Internet. If a company goes nuts you have to put up or go dial up (like that's an option these days).
I urge people to contact the FTC and let them know what's on you mind. This needs to be dealt with before Telco's make their own laws.
Re: (Score:1)
Point taken however try to get a job in some companies without internet access. It's very difficult if you can't support the company after hours. Unless you like driving.
get involved with your communi
Re: (Score:1)
Citizens not consumers (Score:1, Insightful)
There ahs to be a compromise... (Score:2)
so why not do this:
Allow a tiered Internet to be created, but the Telecomms, by regulation, must keep a certain level of quality of service to the most basic of tiers, and if the market will bear increasing costs of the higher tiers, allow that to take place. Those that want that higher tier of service will subsidize those of you who prefer the usual way of getting your bits across.
No there doesn't. (Score:2)
Mistake in the works (Score:1)
FCC caves in once again to corporations (Score:3, Insightful)
But make no mistake about it, this is the FCC -- once again -- caving into the large corporations that fund politicians and who more-or-less run the US gov't.
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We are already seeing the very beginnings in the behavior of the internet companies of the potential or in some cases actualization of things which will be VERY hard to correct if not legislated and soon.
Packet Shaping is being used in a negative way to impact customer performance on the network already in most cases. These internet compan
Who enforces RICO? (Score:1)
'The four simple words "pay up or else" are sufficient to constitute the crime of extortion.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion [wikipedia.org]
I would say this is exactly what the consumer telco monopolies are saying when they threaten to throttle bandwidth on any Internet host or service, if some form of additional payment is not provided.
Re: (Score:2)
If an ISP is going to cut off or otherwise impair a connection after a certain amount of transfer over a period of time then this info should be published in simple terms as part of the first page
Just Build a New Internet -- Without the Telcos (Score:1)
Its not impossible. That's how it got started in the first place. There are other ways to do it, they just require cooperation. And there, I'm afraid, is much of the rub.