Obama mandates FCC to support Network Neutrality
whitehouse.gov
whitehouse.gov
I know its a difficult topic to broach with civility, but I think that the United States would be a little better if more people openly discussed politics and policy, instead of just militantly sticking to their views (or their parent's views, and so on)
The US will be behind in technology and inovation. But now after seeing Google take the lead, they want to control the internet.
If you read the full speeech (http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html) it's clear that this policy states that consumers should pick the winners and losers, not providers, and networks must allow 'non-harmful' devices to connect to the network...
When it comes to 3G, this part worries me a little: "there may be benefits to innovation and investment of broadband providers offering managed services in limited circumstances. ... I believe such services can supplement -- but must not supplant -- free and open Internet access..."
I can see it now: Crippled 3G? $50/month. Neutral 3G? $200/month (because "that's what it costs us to provide it").
I'm not positive, but I'd be willing to bet this is how cable providers are allowed to disable some functionality of set-top boxes...?
Overall I think it's a very good thing, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out as case law defines these guidelines.
As for cable STBs, they don't even connect to the Internet and thus are exempt from net neutrality. And if you don't like your crippled Cisco/Moto cable box you can always buy a Moxi... for $800... that will be obsolete in a year.
Untrue. Nobody takes advantage of it because it costs $100/year extra. (You pay the $200 subsidy on your "free phone" every 2 years as part of your monthly bill. If you bring your own phone, you pay for that "free phone" anyway.)
Since most people don't like throwing away $200, most people use a subsidized phone.
<nelson voice>Ha ha.</nelson voice>
Fuck yeah!!!
- each such new rule on broadband providers brings closer the day the FCC adds content-censorship rules to internet communications, as the FCC already applies to broadcast TV, and as other nations -- even those we don't think of as especially prone to censorship, like Australia -- have started to apply to the internet
- this closes off potential business models for upstart bandwidth and content providers. Oh, incumbents will be sure to have their preferred models interpreted as being in compliance. Disney's ESPN360 will still be able to negotiate ISP-by-ISP video access [1]; Google will still be able to pay ISPs to install its edge caches so Google's traffic is the fastest on the internet [2]. But if an upstart wanted to offer "free" broadband subsidized by sponsoring sites -- for example, a service offering 6Mbps to paying sponsor websites, 128Kbps to everyone else -- that'd be unfair discrimination, until sufficient lobbying/donations occur to get a favorable FCC ruling.
The only good thing I see in the rules is Genachowski's second rule, "broadband providers must be transparent about their network management practices." Transparency can help consumer activism and competitive choice control abuses better than any agency rulemaking.
[1] http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/cable-isps-see-net-ne...
[2] http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutralit...
If you're arguing that increasing the scope of the FCC's authority leaves it open to future abuse by people we may not agree with, I think it's pretty clear that keeping the FCC out of it wasn't working either. Sad as it is, I believe I have more say in how the FCC operates than I do in AT&T and Comcast. Particularly given the realities of local telecom monopolies in the US.
And the entire point of the ruling is to emphatically state that subverting standards and protocols is not a business opportunity. Ad-supported broadband that relies on manipulating the IP stream is a danger, not a victim.
Perhaps that's the problem. Other people, who may have very different values than you, also have say in how the FCC operates. Since we've long ago crossed a line limiting the federal government to enumerated powers, and that protecting our physical safety is now at least as important as protecting our freedoms, it's easy to imagine a regime where some majority elects to silence some minority of [porn readers | gay supporters | militia supporters | whatever unpopular minority].
And in the past, when the FCC has issued regulations or fines that you disagree with, how have you made them account for their actions? What, exactly, is the process for a citizen to exert influence over specific regulatory policy? Granted that, as a parent post argued, you can exert some influence in general by way of your legislators, but how can you ever say "that was the straw that broke the camel's back, I want out."?
In the case of the commercial carriers, though, restricted speech may in some specific situations be a good thing. While I disagree with it myself, should people with specific sets of values be allowed to purchase a net connection that's pre-filtered for ideas the find offensive (say, hate speech, or gay content)? That's their right, isn't it?
Today in the television arena, we argue because what's broadcast goes out to everyone, and some people don't want some shows to be seen. With broadcast, they don't have the option of blocking it from their own home, so the get the FCC to block it from everyone's home. If ISPs are allowed to filter, then those ISPs can do the filtering for those with "delicate sensibilities" can have the bland world they want, and the rest of us can revel in free speech unhindered.
The FCC is an agency with censorship in its DNA: it fines broadcasters for indecency, of course, but also uses its discretion over media ownership and broadcast licenses to favor some operators and expression at the expense of more critical views.
Interpretation of neutrality rules will give the FCC -- constructed always of three loyalists from the President's party, and two loyalists from the other party -- another bit of leverage on private interests.
The next generation of righteous busybodies could easily decide packets aren't truly neutral unless they advance neutrality, equality, and justice for all people. Packets which contain hate speech, pornography, anonymous speech, content inaccessible to the handicapped, political campaigning beyond the spending limits of the FEC, or an insufficient proportion of 'underrepresented' viewpoints all twist the net against the public interest. Why shouldn't fair-minded regulators issue more rules to protect us? Demand more proof of compliance and 'good faith' from operators to stay in business? Once an agency is reviewing business practices for compliance with political ideals, where does it stop?
We need no federal 'neutrality' rules for newspapers, magazines, or books; we shouldn't need them for electronic communications, either. Inviting the FCC to regulate this medium makes it more like our tamer broadcasting outlets, and less like our vigorous independent publishing. Is that the direction we want to move?
I think it's pretty clear that keeping the FCC out of it wasn't working either
How? The supposed biased-network trangressions have been tiny and temporary. Open networks have defeated closed without needing the FCC's help. Even lagging other nations, broadband internet is cheaper, faster, and available over more wires/wavelengths in the USA each year. And if there were major harms, there'd be an opportunity for upstarts and competitors to advertise "the whole internet" as a marketing theme.
If the problem is lack of local competition, adopt pro-competitive reforms -- don't dictate with federal rules what voluntarily-contracted network services are legal or illegal. Such rules always wind up benefiting the big incumbents who can show up in DC (even if those incumbents initially seem to gripe).
Why would that be so awful?
Ad-sponsored 'free' TV/radio is a beloved cultural institution.
Ad-sponsored dialup (eg NetZero) is a minor point on the spectrum of connectivity options.
Ad-sponsored search (eg Google) is a fundamental utility of the web.
Ad-sponsored content (from NYTimes to Slate to Gawker Media to HuffPo) drives much of the web's cultural discussion.
Even a novel online utility like Facebook depends on the potential of selling preferential ad-placement to sponsors.
But if some destination websites sponsor faster broadband delivery for their own traffic, that would be the Death Of The Internet, unless the feds make such paid-prioritization illegal? I don't buy it.
It's all part of the economic solution-space competitive enterprises should be allowed to explore.
<p>Maybe we are missing out on that. But we're preventing Comcast from throttling the bandwidth on Youtube because they'd rather you buy the cable package. And given how few ISPs there are in this country, and how many businesses they're in, that's a pretty big danger already.</p>
<blockquote>each such new rule on broadband providers brings closer the day the FCC adds content-censorship rules to internet communications</blockquote>
<p>Does it really? It sounds more like the FCC is saying to the ISPs "what people do with their internet connections is none of your business." With the exception of the bit about copyright enforcement, of course. Which is a pretty big exception.</p>
The solution to this should not be to limit those companies that do exist, but to foster the establishment of competitors.
(Edit: markup)
That is a good thing. We want innovation on top of the network platform, and getting there is easier when we make the network a commodity.
China tried, but it didn't do a very good job. Do you really think the FCC will do better if it decides it wants to?
You make it sound like blanket Internet censorship has already begun in Australia. This is not the case. Firstly you have to understand that the "clean feed" idea that the Australian Government has been bandying about since they were elected has more to do with political manoeuvring than any desperate desire for censorship. Certain key conservative independents are enamoured with the idea and the government generally needs their support to pass controversial legislation.
The "clean feed" is wildly unpopular with Australian industry and the public. Many grass roots organisations have quickly taken up the fight against it and some of Australia's largest ISPs have even spoken out publicly[1]. The government said that industry was misinformed or some such crap, but the damage had been done.
Last reports spoke of a trial going ahead involving some Australian ISPs, using a small test sized blacklist. This blacklist was subsequently leaked and just hammered further nails into the coffin of the "clean feed" when it was discovered that the blacklist contained many sites of types that were not meant to be censored[2]. The government back-peddled, saying the blacklist was not the "official" list or some such crap, but the damage had been done.
There has not been a peep out of the government about this censorship business for months now since the leaking of the blacklist. I think and hope they've decided that the idea is far too controversial to pursue. If they do ever get back onto it, you can bet that they will encounter even more resistance than before.
The only thing that has ensured the "clean feed" is not permanently dead are the hysterical "won't somebody please think of the children!" cries coming from those who have no understanding of the technology involved and desperately wish to impose their own social standards on the rest of us. Those with vested interests choose to exploit these sentiments and only those who have not bothered to inform themselves of the real issues find them compelling.
So please don't offhandedly cite the boogy man of blanket Internet censorship in Australia to strengthen your argument. It's far from a forgone conclusion and if I had to bet, I'd say it won't come to pass.
[1] http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communications/soa/ISP-level...
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html
YouTube isn't a TV replacement, Hulu is. I've read that in the future Hulu might go to a model requiring you to have a cable subscription to have access to Hulu. The logic was that cable providers pay large fees to carry various channels and those fees was what was financing productions of tv. Content owns don't want to jeopardize those fees.