View Full Version : F.C.C. Begins Crafting Rules on Network Neutrality
I know that the market driven mentality hates rules like these but without it the Internet could easily be controlled by big corporations.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/fcc-begins-crafting-rules-on-network-neutrality/
By Saul Hansell
There is a fair bit of disagreement whether Julius Genachowski is going to make the Internet more open, but it’s clear already that he is moving to open up the arcane ways of the Federal Communications Commission, which he chairs.
Julius GenachowskiThursday morning, the commission voted unanimously to launch a formal discussion of Mr. Genachowski’s proposed rules for what is called network neutrality, a concept that would require telecommunications companies not to favor certain services or devices over others.
The three Democrats voted in favor of the proposal. The two Republicans voted to support moving forward with the inquiry, but they did not support the text of Mr. Genachowski’s proposal.
Unlike past commission chairmen, Mr. Genachowski has issued a draft of his proposed rules rather than simply asking questions. He is allowing three months for comments, longer than usual. And he directed the commission staff to examine the technical issues that underlie the debate.
“For too long the commission has fallen into the habit of obscuring from public view the text of proposed rules,” said Robert M. McDowell, one of the Republican commissioners.
Mr. McDowell praised the “persistent eagerness” of the chairman to find a way to engage the Republicans in the discussion.
Mr. Genachowski also sought to address the heavy criticism his proposal has received from telecommunications companies that his plan would lead to gridlock on the Internet because they would not be allowed to act as traffic cops.
His plan included an extensive list of “reasonable network management practices” that would be permitted.
These included reducing the effect of network congestion, guaranteeing customers a certain quality of service, giving priority to communications by public safety agencies, and preventing illegal uses of the network, such as the unauthorized transmission of copyrighted works.
Mr. Genachowski, however, offered more questions than answers on what may be the biggest philosophical debate: whether a telecommunications company can give preference to services it offers over those of rivals. Communications companies want to offer services that take advantage of some of the capacity or features of their networks. This might be offering Internet video services, improved voice mail or text messaging, or faster connections to Internet sites that pay for speedy service.
The commission simply asked for comment on how to define what it calls “managed services” and what rules should apply to them.
On this issue, Michael J. Copps, one of the Democratic commissioners, argued that Internet service providers should not be able to favor their own products over others.
“The Internet must never be about powerful gatekeepers and walled gardens,” he said. “It must always be about the smoothest possible flow of communications among people.”
But Mr. McDowell said that such rules would deny consumers the benefits of better services.
“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.”
As expected, the proposal would explicitly extend the commission’s informal network neutrality policy to wireless as well as wired networks.
The commission has not yet released the text of its proposal. (That’s another of its arcane procedures.) A live blog of the meeting is on its site, Openinternet.gov, where presumably it will post the full proposal soon. According to a news release from the agency, the proposal says that providers of broadband Internet service:
1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
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;
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;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.
Comments are due Jan. 14, with replies to comments due Mar. 5. The commission has as long as it wants after that to decide what to do.
Since President Obama campaigned on a promise of network neutrality, it is not at all clear that any amount of persistent eagerness on all sides will be able to create rules that will accommodate the concerns of the telecommunications companies and the commission Republicans.
GetAClue
10-23-2009, 02:46 PM
This is simply an attempt by the Obama administration to take over yet another industry. They are not satisfied with owning the banking and auto industries. They are going after the healthcare industry with “healthcare reform” (or is it health insurance reform), energy with Cap and Tax and now they are targeting the last bastions of free speech in America, the Internet.
To your point SM, big companies ALREADY own the internet. Who do you think maintains the backbone? AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and all the other telecommunications companies are the ones that own and maintain it now. The problem in the administrations eyes is that people are able to express their opinions and share information freely between each other without government interference. If they are able to pass this piece of legislation, it will do what they are attempting to do in Radio that is impose so called “fairness” that requires everyone to agree with their position or pay the price.
It is hard to imagine anyone with any intelligence what so ever wanting the government to come and control something that is used by so many people. That is the sure fire way to screw it up.
This is simply an attempt by the Obama administration to take over yet another industry. They are not satisfied with owning the banking and auto industries. They are going after the healthcare industry with “healthcare reform” (or is it health insurance reform), energy with Cap and Tax and now they are targeting the last bastions of free speech in America, the Internet.
To your point SM, big companies ALREADY own the internet. Who do you think maintains the backbone? AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner and all the other telecommunications companies are the ones that own and maintain it now. The problem in the administrations eyes is that people are able to express their opinions and share information freely between each other without government interference. If they are able to pass this piece of legislation, it will do what they are attempting to do in Radio that is impose so called “fairness” that requires everyone to agree with their position or pay the price.
It is hard to imagine anyone with any intelligence what so ever wanting the government to come and control something that is used by so many people. That is the sure fire way to screw it up.
Educate yourself on these issues and stop trying to use talking points that don't make any sense.
I've been involved with Internet connectivity since the early to mid 90s. I know who owns the backbones so don't be stupid.
Big companies own the backbone just like big companies own the air waves for your voice service. Now imagine if big companies could decide who gets to use the service and who doesn't. Who gets to have a called go through and who doesn't.
Net Neutrality is keeping anyone from controlling the data to keep it open. You seem to think that it means the opposite. Read the proposal or just the bullet items and then tell us which one is about big government control.
GetAClue
10-23-2009, 04:14 PM
Educate yourself on these issues and stop trying to use talking points that don't make any sense.
I've been involved with Internet connectivity since the early to mid 90s. I know who owns the backbones so don't be stupid.
Big companies own the backbone just like big companies own the air waves for your voice service. Now imagine if big companies could decide who gets to use the service and who doesn't. Who gets to have a called go through and who doesn't.
Net Neutrality is keeping anyone from controlling the data to keep it open. You seem to think that it means the opposite. Read the proposal or just the bullet items and then tell us which one is about big government control.
You and your so called talking points. You need a new talking point. :lmao2:
The point of this legislation is to give the government control of the internet. This administration feels that the Internet is a "right" and that everyone should have free access to it. But they also want to be able to control the content. Read between the lines and quit believing what the politicians are selling you.
GetAClue
10-23-2009, 04:15 PM
Let me rephrase that, the government doesn't believe that free internet is a right, they just are trying to sell this legislation that way so that the useful idiots will buy into it.
Let me rephrase that, the government doesn't believe that free internet is a right, they just are trying to sell this legislation that way so that the useful idiots will buy into it.
Exactly what part of this is controlling? It's to keep government and businesses from controlling the information on the Internet. Really, you should educate yourself on this issue and you know, Get A Clue.
1. would not be allowed to prevent any of its users from sending or receiving the lawful content of the user’s choice over the Internet;
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;
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;
4. would not be allowed to deprive any of its users of the user’s entitlement to competition among network providers, application providers, service providers, and content providers;
5. would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and
6. would be required to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.
Please just point out what parts are going to allow for government control.
bairdi
10-23-2009, 05:16 PM
John McCain, who admittedly does not even knowing how to operate a computer, is now introducing a bill to block net neutrality. McCain's bill will do exactly what the clueless one is claiming that Obama wants to do.
McCain Moves to Block FCC Net Neutrality
The FCC voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with the debate in an effort to formalize net neutrality guidelines. Senator John McCain followed up by introducing a bill that would prohibit the FCC from governing communications.
In the wake of FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's initial announcement of his intent to pursue formal net neutrality rules, a group of GOP lawmakers already initiated a similar attempt. However, that amendment was retracted almost as quickly as it was filed.
McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of ‘freedom'.
According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?
Oddly, the bill also contains text stating that any regulations in effect on the day before the Internet Freedom Act is officially enacted are grandfathered in and exempt from the provisions of the Internet Freedom Act. The implication seems to be that if the FCC can formalize net neutrality rules before McCain can get the Internet Freedom Act signed into law, the net neutrality rules would still apply.
Net neutrality opponents claim that the free market can police itself and that any net neutrality restrictions will stifle innovation and competition. However, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and only changed policy after the threat of FCC net neutrality rules. AT&T sought to block customers from using VoIP services from its wireless network, but changed policy out of fear of the net neutrality rules. The trend seems to be that these providers only do the ‘right thing' when the net neutrality gun is pointing at their head.
What the FCC voted on yesterday is simply to start the debate. Its an open discussion, so what are net neutrality opponents afraid of? They have 120 days to gather information and collect data and present their case. If there are valid issues that need to be resolved, then go ahead and bring them to the table. Don't initiate legislation that seeks to pretend the table doesn't exist.
During the Presidential election campaign last year the differences between the two candidates was stark. While Obama was attached surgically to his CrackBerry and his staff leveraged social media from their Macbooks, McCain admitted having little or no knowledge or interest in modern technologies like email or the Internet.
It seems suspicious that the Internet is suddenly a major concern for him. Maybe he just missed seeing his name in the paper.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/174221/mccain_moves_to_block_fcc_net_neutrality.html
ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 05:42 PM
hahahahahah neutraility givin to by the government being ran by the racist party
bairdi
10-24-2009, 03:24 PM
Surprise: McCain Biggest Beneficiary of Telco/ISP Money
Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:31am EDT
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast over the past two years, according to a new report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).
Meanwhile, McCain has emerged as the ISPs' biggest champion against new "network neutrality" rules from the Federal Communications Commission, which voted Thursday to move forward in the process to adopt such rules. Shortly after the FCC vote, McCain introduced a bill (the "Internet Freedom Act") that would block regulation of the nation's largest broadband networks.
Net neutrality rules would amount to a federal mandate that broadband providers cannot block or hinder the internet traffic of any web site or service, regardless of whether or not that site or service completes with a similar site or service offered by the ISP itself. In other words, a telco ISP could not limit bandwidth used for Skype VoIP traffic, while maximizing bandwidth available for its own VoIP service.
As Congress considers legislation that would codify net neutrality into law, cable and phone companies are hoping to cut a better deal on Capitol Hill than they are likely to get from the FCC, the Sunlight Foundation's Bill Allison says.
As the network neutrality issue has come to a head over the past year, due in large part to the new FCC's interest in it, telco and cable lobbyists have been flooding the offices (and coffers) of lawmakers. The Sunlight Foundation study found that some 244 members of Congress were the beneficiaries of contributions--totaling more than $9.4 million--from January 2007 to June 2009. The analysis was based on a survey of giving by eight large broadband providers and two trade associations that represent them, all which have disclosed lobbying on net neutrality issues.
The telecom interests also targeted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. ($275,275), Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Mont. ($248,999) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ($198,972).
Verizon and AT&T have been particularly active in this effort; they also were the sources of all the clustered contributions among broadband providers, with AT&T and its outside lobbyists combining to give to 110 members, followed by Comcast (105 members) and Verizon (96 members).
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUS246040901420091024
CosmicRocker
10-24-2009, 04:57 PM
Do I understand this - being a dolt about the internet.
The Network Neutrality would treat all traffic as equal, so even large users would not get preference ( or reduce server acces to small users).
does that sum it up?
If so, I'd have to be in favor of that, just because corps/org send more traffic, why should they get preferrence .
All " speech' should be treated the same.
feel free to correct me if I'm missing the idea here.
Do I understand this - being a dolt about the internet.
The Network Neutrality would treat all traffic as equal, so even large users would not get preference ( or reduce server acces to small users).
does that sum it up?
If so, I'd have to be in favor of that, just because corps/org send more traffic, why should they get preferrence .
All " speech' should be treated the same.
You pretty much understand it. It's just that Get A Clue and Roger are programmed to mindlessly repeat the talking points without ever having the slightest clue why. That's why they can't show any reason to believe what they're saying.
ROdger Right
10-25-2009, 04:58 PM
You pretty much understand it. It's just that Get A Clue and Roger are programmed to mindlessly repeat the talking points without ever having the slightest clue why. That's why they can't show any reason to believe what they're saying.
I guess you would agree with trying to silence fox seeing how you have gottin rid of so many others unfairly on this site. So shut the fuck up you little panzy.
ROdger Right
10-25-2009, 05:10 PM
I know you fear me in the darkest nights for there is nothing you can do to stop me in the brightest day. I laugh for I see your fear as a compliment for there is no chance of direct eye contact because you never stop inspecting my shoe laces.
I realize some men can't face their fear but id never think over the distance of thousands of miles you still quake when my ink rolls through.
I guess you would agree with trying to silence fox seeing how you have gottin rid of so many others unfairly on this site. So shut the fuck up you little panzy.
OK, so you're now showing your emotional programming and proving my point. :thumbsup: Thank you for the help but it wasn't necessary. Everyone could see your hate and inability to think rationally and understand this issue.
If you are capable of calming down and educating yourself feel free to explain what part of this bill would allow Obama to control the Internet?
I know you fear me in the darkest nights for there is nothing you can do to stop me in the brightest day. I laugh for I see your fear as a compliment for there is no chance of direct eye contact because you never stop inspecting my shoe laces.
I realize some men can't face their fear but id never think over the distance of thousands of miles you still quake when my ink rolls through.
Do you really think that you're that important to anyone? Do you know Seedy?
ROdger Right
10-26-2009, 04:20 PM
OK, so you're now showing your emotional programming and proving my point. :thumbsup: Thank you for the help but it wasn't necessary. Everyone could see your hate and inability to think rationally and understand this issue.
If you are capable of calming down and educating yourself feel free to explain what part of this bill would allow Obama to control the Internet?
You are clearly a pathetic human being.
The bill is not done, that much is certain.
You are clearly a pathetic human being.
Oh look, more insults, hate and absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter or your false claims.
Thanks for showing off your programming again.
If you or Clueless decide to actually point out where Net Neutrality can be used by the White House to control data than by all means please do. If not, just keep proving my point about your programming and the Neocon hate machines.
kres24GT
10-27-2009, 12:51 PM
I always die laughing when Moby calls someone else a sheep.
I always die laughing when Moby calls someone else a sheep.
DO you have anything to offer on the subject of Net Neutrality or any political subject for that matter?
Independent Harry
10-27-2009, 05:14 PM
I always die laughing when Moby calls someone else a sheep.
I always ignore your posts, because they simply say the same thing over and over again...
ROdger Right
10-27-2009, 05:45 PM
Oh look, more insults, hate and absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter or your false claims.
Thanks for showing off your programming again.
If you or Clueless decide to actually point out where Net Neutrality can be used by the White House to control data than by all means please do. If not, just keep proving my point about your programming and the Neocon hate machines.
You threw the first stone jackass, so don't go crying when you figure out i have some rocks too.
The government has copied everything including emails before. That is everybodys nt just those they watch.
So throw some more programming around, it seems to be the only thing you are capable of doing.
kres24GT
10-27-2009, 06:27 PM
DO you have anything to offer on the subject of Net Neutrality or any political subject for that matter?
You can call others sheep, no one can call you one, got you.
The_Limit
10-29-2009, 01:04 PM
I don't see how anyone can be against net neutrality.
Listen RodgerRight and GetAClue, the the truth about net neutrality is this:
The telecoms want the freedom to "package" some websites. For example you would have their sports package, where for an extra $5 dollars you would get access to ESPN, CNNSI, PROFOOTBALLTALK, FOX SPORTS etc.
You would have their "entertainment package" where you would get Youtube, Wikipedia, Twitter, flickr, facebook for an extra $10 dollars.
And so on and so on.
It would be possible, for example, that without net neutrality laws, telecoms could deny you access to websites unless you pay for it. It would also be legal for telecoms to shut your website down, if for example you didn't purchase their "entertainment package," and decided to start your own youtube like website....maybe they could cite a copyright infringment.
Right now, US law prevents telecoms from doing this, because the "internet" was created under the prinicple that all traffic must be treated the same, hence the term net neutrality.
Here in Canada, the telecoms want to "package" the internet as well, so they oppose the Canadian version of net neutrality. But an overwhelming number of Canadians support net neutrality laws, which state that all traffic must be treated the same.
I do not know how it is in the U.S., but in Canada, high-speed internet infrastructure was largely subsidized by the government.
Again, I do not see how anyone can be against net neutrality. It is absolutely pivotal to the average American that internet remain traffic neutral.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.