Slashdot Log In
FCC Votes Yet Another Study of Net Neutrality
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Mar 26, 2007 09:49 PM
from the analysis-paralysis dept.
from the analysis-paralysis dept.
yuna49 writes to let us know that the US Federal Communications Commission last week announced a Notice of Inquiry (PDF) into: "...the behavior of broadband market participants, including: (1) How broadband providers are managing Internet traffic on their networks today; (2) Whether providers charge different prices for different speeds or capacities of service; (3) Whether our policies should distinguish between content providers that charge end users for access to content and those that do not; (4) How consumers are affected by these practices." eWeek reports that the study is targeted at whether broadband providers are treating some content providers more favorably than others. Distinctly absent is any discussion about port filtering or other restrictions on Internet usage. The two Democrats on the Commission pressed for a broader "Notice of Rulemaking" to move more quickly towards a policy of non-discrimination. The Republican majority ignored these arguments and voted for an Inquiry, to which the Democrats acceded.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Republican Majority (Score:2)
I don't get it...Why in the world is there a Republican majority?
Re:Republican Majority (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Another vote? (Score:2)
Boooring... (Score:2)
Along these lines... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure people said the same thing about Fair Use rights. "Why do we need a law that proactively states people can use their music they purchased any way they see fit?" The record companies would never do something so consumer unfriendly as to try an dictate how people enjoy their product, or say they had to buy a separate copy of an album on tape to use in their Walkman instead of just d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
why do we need a law like this?
We already have a net neutrality law, which is why very little is currently happening. But the current neutrality law is really just an FCC statute called the "common carrier" [wikipedia.org] law, and the statute was weakened a few years ago. One particular ISP announced that they think neutrality is unfair, and they plan on violating it. (It was a quote about how Google doesn't pay that ISP when Google traffic went to their customers, which isn't true. I would have to dig
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet. There have been noises lately from corporations who wish to cash in on mergers which have created large blocks of internet subscribers. Noteably the CEO of SBC has been making serious threats to change the way the internet works [techdirt.com] by charging content providers to have access to SBC customers.
And make no mistake about i
Re: (Score:2)
How is this not a solution in search of a problem? Are there regulations that can be enforced, but wouldn't fall under "legal restriction" as defined in Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At this point at least some of the carriers have begun to (apparently) break the rules as they see fit all the
Re: (Score:2)
that telecommunications companies do not offer different rates to internet consumers based on content or service type
What? I've never heard of an ISP that didn't offer different rates to customers based on service type. Let me do a quick check here:
Earthlink [earthlink.net] has 3 plans ranging from $29.95/month for 1.5Mbps to $44.95/month for 6Mbps.
Comcast [comcast.com] has 2 plans - 12MBps burst rate for $42.95/month and 16MBps burst rate for $52.95/month.
And am I supposed to believe that Slashdot pays $42.95/month for their internet connection? I'll start
Re:Along these lines... (Score:5, Informative)
Example: if Comcast struck a deal with Yahoo, Yahoo would become the default search engine, and Google would be moved into a "premium" tier, meaning that I'd have to pay extra in order to access Google. I don't have to do this today because of Net Neutrality.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Along these lines... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been replying a lot to this discussion, so let me cut down to the real reason we are in the situation we have now:
Comcast says I get 4Mbps of bandwidth. But they really divided 400Mbps across 100 customers, said I get 4Mbps (that's a simplified version). Now that everybody wants to download stuff from YouTube, Comcast finds that they don't actually have enough bandwidth to give everyone 4MBps. So they decide that maybe they can charge some customers to have priority over others. They make more money and finance their rollout of real 4MBps service. They they tell everyone it is 8MBps service, and sell another the option to give priority over other users. This cycle repeats forever. But it's a scam - one person gets 4MBps only because someone else's connection is now slowed down even further because their packets are delayed. You see, you really can't "speed up" a packet, you can only slow one down. There's an expression "robbing Peter to pay Paul" when you get behind on one bill, and so you pay another bill late to make this one on time. That's what the ISPs want to do.
A similar thing happened years ago with phone service. Phone companies would sell caller ID, and a service to block sales calls. They they sold the sales people a service to block their number. Then they sold a service to send blocked numbers to a special message that told them to leave a message. Then they sold sales people a service that got around the special message. In the end, nobody ever got what they paid for. The phone companies just pitted their customers against each other. So it is with "priority" service. Once everyone pays for priority, who has priority then?
Instead, we need to go the opposite direction than all of this. We need to make ISPs report accurate information on their service level (The FDA mandates food labeling and nobody went out of business). Then, we need to open-up the local telco lines to competition. You do that by separating ISP service from phone line service. Ex: Verizon does the local phone lines, but Comcast, Earthlink, CavTel, etc. provide ISP services over those lines. This will open-up real competition. In Maryland, they passed a law about 5 years ago that did this, and DSL suddenly appeared everywhere and new ISPs arrived. Now that the law reverted, my current ISP is likely to vanish since my local telco (Verizon) can force them out of business once the time limit is up.
It all gets really complicated. But in the end, Network Neutrality just means everyone is treated fairly. It has worked in every aspect of the telecom industry thus far. If your issue is that no law is needed, that is a reasonable position since the FCC is handling this now. But remember, the telecom companies stand to gain a lot by starting the phony "prioritization" scam, and you will find fake blogs and links all over the place with info about why Network Neutrality is evil. The telecoms see a chance at eliminating the FCC law, and the fight is really just to retain the status quo, more so than to add any new regulation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. All backbone providers must allow other providers to connect to them on a naked pipe.
2. All providers must use standard protocols*.
3. Providers may only throttle data/bandwidth based on protocol, not orgin/destination.
*I'd leave defining "standard" up to ICAAN, with these additional rules:
1. The protocol must be open - anyone can see how it works
Re: (Score:2)
"Several bills recently were created (and almost passed) that would specifically allow anti-neutral behavior."
That means the telecoms are pushing bills to do exactly what you're saying we shouldn't worry about. If we don't have strong net neutrality laws soon, we will lose the best parts of the Internet within two years. People with power hate the fact that those of us without power can reach a wide audience with little
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, you are both basically saying the same thing.
Yes, there really is no need for a new law.
The danger is that once a law is established,
it will be manipulated, even if that law specially
calls for Network Neutrality, the status quo.
#5 (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/20212
Submitting comments to the FCC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In northern california, we could really use a light rail system, as there are a lot of people who commute all the way to san francisco.
Please be more specific as to where you live. There are Amtrak commuter trains from the South Bay (as far south as Gilroy) and as far east as Sacramento. In the East Bay and Peninsula there is also BART. These all go to San Francisco. Perhaps you meant from the North Bay (Sonoma, Napa, etc.)?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they could, if they took that away from the NSA.