Posted on 06/13/2007 11:26:23 AM PDT by jirwin08
This Friday, June 15th is the deadline for filing comments with the Federal Communications Commission against the prospect of massive federal regulation of the Internet. MoveOn.org and their liberal allies have been pushing more federal control for some time, and now are about to flood the FCC with comments in support of greater regulation of the Internet.
The regulations that MoveOn.org seeks would stifle innovation and prevent Internet companies from offering services in ways that they feel benefit consumers most. These “net neutering” policies would set price controls on Internet content and give federal bureaucrats the power to meddle in one of the most open and free markets we have.
Price controls on the Internet would have the effect that price controls always have on the workings of the market—less output, less innovation, and less investment in the infrastructure critical for the deployment of broadband. I’ve always said that the government is dumb and markets are rational. We should let the market work and watch the future of Internet innovation, competition and technological progress; not give federal busy-bodies the opportunity to interfere.
If the Left has its way, they will grant broad new powers to the same folks who cannot help themselves but to interfere in other key markets from heath care to energy to technology. Help us save one of the last sectors of the economy that has been relatively free of government interference: the telecommunications market.
If you want to see competition, economic growth and job creation, support the market and TAKE ACTION! But if you want to give the left the power to stifle innovation and set federal mandates on Internet content prices, do nothing. The choice is yours.
http://www.freedomworks.org/action/fcc/
Why is it that broadband costs close to $50/mo in the US, while it is around $15/mo in Europe?
Vint Cerf, one of the people who actually created the Internet ;) , offered testimony in favor of net neutrality. (And he works for Google right now -- who certainly could afford to be on the other side of the argument if they wanted to.) When people like that talk, I listen.
Today's Internet is a mix of corporate identities and a Stone Soup-like collection of wonderful people like Jim Robinson. How much bandwidth do you think a startup like FR would have been able to outbid CNN for if packet priorities were based on how much the content provider could pay?
Why is it that medical care and prescriptions cost so much in the US, but they're practically free in Europe? In a question regarding economics and regulations, if you have Dick Armey on one side and a coalition of leftists including George Soros on the other side, I know which side is more likely to get my support.
Sorry, VWRCM, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Broadband is cheap in Europe because you can order it at any address from a dozen different companies. As a result, costs come down through competition and because plans get tailored to provide just what speeds or data size limits the consumer wants — you can order lower-throughput or limited service or a very thick pipe without limits or anything in between.
In contrast, most US addresses have one or at the most two possible providers — your cable company, or (only if you live close enough to the center of town) your phone company. And you have two options: get service, or don’t get service. The US has driven out competition.
Contrariwise, medical care is *not* free in Europe — it is paid for by taxes. No taxes currently support Internet service either in the US or Europe and so this comparison is inaccurate.
If the net neutrality folks succeed in getting congress to pass the onerous net neutrality regulations, then there will be no chance for competing broadband interests to offer variable speed and data size limits like you describe.
But maybe broadband is the unique product that will somehow prove to be the first case in history that increasing government regulation will lead to improved competition, greater access, and lower prices. Maybe Dick Armey is wrong and George Soros is right. (I doubt it though.)
When people, regardless of who they are, agree with hillary and the swimmer, I reach around to make sure I still have my wallet.
The term “Network Neutrality” refers to broad, sweeping new regulations on the Internet that would put the government in charge of the structure and pricing of Internet services.These regulations would prohibit cost sharing among network users, thereby forcing all the costs of network service and upgrades onto the end-consumer.
Additionally, forcing all dynamic, emerging Internet networks into the backward model of a “government-regulated utility” will discourage the creation of the networks of the future, and will result in fewer service choices for consumers.
Here is a PDF of Markey's "Network Neutrality Act of 2006"
By the way, if a bill is introduced by a democrat from Massachussetts, that is your first clue that it is probably a major-league stinker of a bill.
I tend to take characterizations by liberal groups like Common Cause with a grain of salt.
Yet even stopped clocks are right twice a day. It is worthwhile to be cautious but automatically discounting anything these people vote for is simply BDS redirected.
Internet Freedom Coalition quotes
Uh huh. Are you going to believe the NAMBLA web pages too? The quotes you cite are what we in the industry call "FUD" -- short for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", the emotions they are meant to stir without providing actual facts. Those people have an agenda, and are manipulating you -- making up scare stories and pushing all your hot buttons for their own ends. Instead, look at how what they say is actually not real:
"broad, sweeping new regulations on the Internet" -- uh, let's call that a "mischaracterization." Net Neutrality is just one rule: if an Internet provider agrees to provide service to somebody, it can't pick and choose which packets to give you or how fast to serve them based on who served them, or what's in them. That's it. In other words, Verizon can't choose to give you Yahoo's pages faster than it gives you Google's pages -- or CNN's faster than FR's.
That's how the net works now. It's how the net has always worked. FR web pages get the same priority as CNN ones do. Without NN, FR will be hostage to any -- no, *every* -- major ISP who can charge fees CNN can afford but FR can't. Or how about this -- how about if the major service providers decide they don't like FOX? They can offer other MSM outlets better rates and suddenly FOX has no net presence at all.
Note what this is not: This is not a rule that says it can't offer different speeds to end users. Slow or fast is fine, just as long as all the packets are slow or fast. This is not a rule about costs or controls or anything like that -- just that any email is just the same as any other email, any web page is just the same as any other web page. Democracy in action.
If you believe that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" then killing NN is giving the right to tax not to the government but to every telecom company in the country. And anybody who irritates one of them will suddenly go dark for all of that company's customers.
"put government in charge of the structure and pricing of Internet services" -- no, that's more than a mischaracterization, that's a flat lie. It's just that one rule.
"These regulations would prohibit cost sharing among network users, thereby forcing all the costs of network service and upgrades onto the end-consumer." -- Did you actually read the bill whose link you provided? This is so far outside the scope of the bill that it would be laughable if it weren't such an intentional lie. The bill says nothing about any of these things. There's JUST ONE RULE.
What they are trying to argue, on a very technical level, is that some content providers' packets are more expensive to them than other content providers' packets. That is -- again, on a technical level -- completely bogus. The service provider that originates the packets just sends packets. It's the count of bytes over your pipe that gets charged. A larger content provider -- say AOL -- has to buy a larger pipe. Perfectly fair, and in fact the increase in cost for size purchased doesn't have to be linear; anything over (say) 2GB/day and suddenly your costs per packet double -- that's still perfectly legal. But if AOL and FR are on the same pipe, NN will prevent FR from being charged differently for those first 2GB.
"all dynamic, emerging Internet networks" -- huh? There's one Internet. There won't be more, not for the next fifty or a hundred years anyway. Trust me on that one. (OK, somebody's going to come up and point out IPv6, I know -- but that's not a new Internet. That's a modification of the existing one. Packets are still packets, they'll go over the same wire... etc.)
"fewer service choices for consumers" -- just the opposite, as I think I have already been clear about. As a prior poster said, net neutrality permits the continuation of the great level playing field that is the Internet. Fewer choices would come about because companies feel freer to ZOT(tm) content sources they don't like -- which NN will *prevent*.
I have been a computer programmer for more than 25 years. My Bachelors was in Computer Science and I am currently working on my Masters thesis in Computer Science. You may therefore assume that I am slightly familiar with the subject. If your dislike of the bill is based on the wrong people introducing it and a couple of agenda-steered, FUD-filled, contrary-to-fact websites you have read, you might want to read further.
I beg your pardon -- I missed this post. My rhetorical question of my prior post has been answered -- you did *not* read the bill. In fact, section 4(b)2 explicitly states
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a broadband network provider from implementing reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to ... offer varying levels of transmission speed or bandwith;Get the facts. Net Neutrality is a good thing.
If Net Neutrality is such a good thing, then why has the internet grown so well all this time in its absence? And why is it so imperative that it be mandated now that the democrats control congress?
Thanks for breaking it down. Now I’m definitely for neutrality.
> If Net Neutrality is such a good thing, then why has the internet grown so well all this time in its absence? And why is it so imperative that it be mandated now that the democrats control congress?
Excellent question. You like the internet the way it is? Mostly, so do I — although I could do without the spam. :)
Up until recently net neutrality has been enforced by rule from the FCC. However, in late 2005 the FCC “reclassified” broadband internet service — previously considered a “telecommunications service” and subject to the same regulations as telephone calls, it became described as a “information service” and subjected to much looser regulation. Since then many ISPs have endorsed the concept of “Tiered Service” wherein my packets get a higher priority than yours — or worse, the ISP might just “accidentally” drop a few... in the extreme case, you can buy my entire pipe and I won’t get any service whatever despite having paid for “basic service.”
Think I’m kidding? It’s already happening. Some examples:
- Just a few months ago, AOL blocked (to or from its servers, regardless of whether the email was sent to or from a member) any email that contained the text dearaol.com, which was a site opposing an AOL policy change. (http://news.com.com/AOL+charged+with+blocking+opponents+e-mail/2100-1030_3-6061089.html)
- In 2005, Canada’s telephone company Telus blocked customers from visiting a union Web site during a labor dispute. (http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/)
- There have been several reported cases of ISPs partnering with one or another Voice-over-IP provider and sabotaging the performance of competing applications. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051025/145250_F.shtml)
This kind of behavior is a stifling of competition. You can easily be locked into your ISPs choices for applications — and if you want to, say, use VoIP to call your friend at a different ISP, you’d better a) use the one your ISP partnered with, and b) hope your friend’s ISP hasn’t partnered with a different VoIP product...
It’s got nothing to do with D’s or R’s. It’s got to do with keeping the internet interference-free — hence “net neutral”.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a broadband network provider from implementing reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to ... offer varying levels of transmission speed or bandwith;
I saw that, but the problem is in the implementation and regulatory powers it grants. Who gets to determine what is "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"?
(c) IMPLEMENTATION.—Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall adopt rules that—So ANYONE can lodge a complaint about the varying levels of bandwidth or transmission speed alleging that they are either unreasonable or discriminatory, and the complaint will be deemed granted unless the bureaucracy acts in favor of the broadband network provider within 90 days (they probably can't even figure out who to route the complaint to within 90 days), and the Commission is given new powers to impose fines and assess and order payment of damages. Yeah, I can see why we need to expand the regulatory power of the FCC over broadband network providers in this way.
(1) permit any person to complain to the Commission of anything done or omitted to be done in violation of any duty, obligation, or requirement under this section;
(2) provide that any complaint filed at the Commission that alleges a violation of this section shall be deemed granted unless acted upon by the Commission within 90 days after its filing;
(3) require the Commission, upon prima facie showing by a complainant of a violation of this section, to issue within 48 hours of the filing of any such complaint, a cease-and-desist or other appropriate order against the violator until the complaint is fully resolved, and, if in the public interest, such order may affect classes of persons similarly situated to the complainant or the violator, and any such order shall be in effect until the Commission resolves the complaint with an order dismissing the complaint or imposing appropriate remedies to resolve such complaint; and
(4) enable the Commission to use mediation or arbitration or other means to resolve the dispute.
(d) ENFORCEMENT.—This section shall be enforced under titles IV and V of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 401, 501 et seq.). A violation of any provision of this section shall be treated as a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, except that the warning requirements of section 503(b) shall not apply. In addition to imposing fines under its title V authority, the Commission also is authorized to issue any order, including an order directing a broadband network operator to pay damages to a complaining party.
> the problem is in the implementation and regulatory powers it grants. Who gets to determine what is “reasonable and nondiscriminatory”?
You’re moving the goalposts now. Twice in fact — by focusing on the legislation, and then focusing on the enforcement within the legislation. I’m talking about NN rules at the FCC level, not Congress.
First of all, I agree that the *correct* solution would be not to pass any legislation at all but instead convince the FCC to put broadband back under “telecom services” where it belongs. The article which started this post was not about a bill in front of Congress; it was about offering comment to the FCC about what decision the FCC should make — i.e. there’s a chance to reset everything back the way it was in 2005.
Second of all — discrimination in packets is not at all like discrimination in hiring or renting or whatever. It’s a strictly mathematical concept. If over the course of a day, packets from A take 25ms to get from your front door to your back door while there’s such-and-such a load, and packets from B take 125ms to travel the same route under the same load, there’s discrimination. Or, if A and B are both trying to send packets at the same time over the same pipe, they had better each lose the same percentage of packets or something funky is going on. It’s not difficult to come up with those standards.
As far as enforcement under the legislation — well, I hope it becomes a moot question, but remember how fast Internet-time is — if there’s a complaint outstanding for three months, that’s long enough to put a company’s survival in jeopardy.
Google is excite.com dejour and they do not need "help" from the any government.
Google/excite.com/netscape.com will make billions pushing objects, and their Peers have a responsibility to IP shape and charge them accordingly.
The VCs (Kliner/Perkins?) that pumped and dumped Netscape in the 90s will be run up on fraud charges when Google moves into the dump stage, and then everything will be "neutral".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.