Posted on 09/19/2009 11:02:26 AM PDT by Admiral_Zeon
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, plans to propose a new so-called net neutrality rule Monday that could prevent telecommunications, cable and wireless companies from blocking Internet applications, according to sources at the agency.
Genachowski will discuss the rules Monday during a keynote speech at The Brookings Institute. He isn't expected to drill into many details, but the proposal will specifically be for an additional guideline on how operators like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can control what goes on their networks. That additional guideline would prevent the operators from discriminating, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content and services.
The guidelines in place today have been criticized by applications developers like Google and public interest groups for not going far enough to clarify what is defined as discriminatory behavior. Comcast is fighting in federal court an FCC ruling that it violated the guidelines by blocking a video application last year. AT&T and Verizon have said existing rules are sufficient, and more regulation is unnecessary. However, they have also said they wouldn't fight against an additional guideline that focuses on discriminatory behavior.
The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because details of the new regulations haven't been officially announced.
The new rule would be the first bold move by Genachowski, who served as President Obama's technology advisor during the campaign and transition. The rule could upset wireless, telecom and cable operators who have fought against regulations that would give them less control over traffic that runs on their networks. They argue that they need to maintain flexibility to manage traffic to ensure some applications don't take up too much bandwidth and make Web access slower for some users.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
One might say that the government has no right to interfere with the private operations of a company, in this case an internet service provider (ISP), and I would agree with that statement. In this case however, the private company controls access to a public resource, which is what the internet is by its very nature. I feel it is more dangerous to allow companies to dictate what sort of traffic is allowed to reach the internet, than it is for ISPs to be regulated to treat all traffic equally.
What this does is assign ISPs quasi-public-utility status.
“prevent telecommunications, cable and wireless companies from blocking Internet applications”
why does this sound like a good thing to me?
I think the general problem here...which the FCC, the White House, and the “rocket scientists” haven’t addressed....is that applications and downloads are increasing...while the net...to about 90 percent is us...is pretty much close to maximum. So this entire discussion here...leads nowhere.
I know around 6PM in my neighborhood...things are running probably half the speed that I’m paying for. By 8PM, that kinda clears up.
5% of the users use 95% of the bandwidth while downloading their bootleg MP3s and BitTorrents. Why do we have to subsidize their activity?
“..the private company controls access to a public resource...”
Wrong. The Internet is not “a” and is not a “public resource”. It’s a lot of (kind of) small private resources. And I really mean a LOT.
The ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to block high-bandwidth usage applications, but they should be allowed to charge more for high bandwidth usage.
And, with this may indeed come further regulation including price controls and/or a Public Internet Option -- it's for the children, 21st century education blah, blah, blah, discrimination against the poor.....
I’m not logged in and my beeber went off while I was in the shower - so I can’t comment now.
That is the plan. Once ISPs are co-opted by the FCC as public utilities they can be regulated. Once regulated, they can be censored. All for the public good of course.
I’m certain current gummint’s ultimate goal is controlling content, not bandwidth, as the IP’s are squawking about...the camels nose is decorated with bits and Bytes
“why does this sound like a good thing to me?”
Because you have not considered WHO gets to decide the definition of “Neutrality”.
This is, or will be, the Internet equivalent of the “Fairness Doctrine”. Places like FR will be hounded out of existence because we are not politically fair and neutral.
It is a bad idea because it gives a very small band of partisan political appointees unreasonable and unnecessary control over the largest, fastest growing form of free expression in the world — and the only one that is not completely controlled by liberals.
Hey, stop that. This is a family oriented site.
;-)
If your beeber went off while you were in the shower, you must be stuned.
VirginiaMom
It seems to me that a better approach would be to limit the amount of bandwidth provided for any file transfer, so that the big file still goes through, but takes even longer the bigger the file.
The FCC is WAY OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION.
The Agency is supposed to regulate radio waves: how far a signal can go and how much power you can use in the signal.
So in the name of freeing the internet from private ISP censorship, the government seizes control of the ISPs to regulate them through “fairness” censorship and “protective” access to private information.
What a dilemma for all the liberal internet freedom geeks, who now have to choke out demands for free market capitalism to protect their rights.
Given Obama’s and Peloski’s people are writing this leglislation, you are an ignorant ass to give them the power to reform or control the internet. They do not believe in free speech nor in the ability to comment without public identification on the internet so they can target you and harm you for saying what you think.
Well, first of all, I would ask you to give yor sources for that “5%” figure. I am just curious where you got the number.
Secondly, let’s say that Beck or some other figure was driven off the air, and the only way to get his program was thru file-sharing. Would you want to be able to do so? Even if “we” were subsidizing it?
The American public subsidizes all manner of things that a lot of us may not use. Take sugar - I can’t really eat it, and have to peer at every label to see if corn syrup is included in the ingredient list. (It makes for sparse pickings sometimes, when all the HFCS is eliminated from your diet.) But our Ag Dept subsidizes sugar production in order to keep it cheap. It’s considered to be a vital part of commerce.
Now I may not feel that Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Bean are a sensible investment for my tax dollar, but that’s the law right now. On what basis does the legislation get rewritten to eliminate sugar subsidies if the sweeteners go to candy production? Likewise, how will you eliminate net subsidies for those who download illegally? After all, many bittorrents are actually of copyright-free properties. How do you tell the difference? Or do you just get rid of them all?
Sounds like a back door to an internet fairness doctrine to me. Once they have the power it will be perverted to do the 180 degree opposite of what they promised.
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.