Print 65 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Dec 30 at 12:14 AM

The net neutrality rules, published Friday, represent the realization of a long dream of Democratic President Barack Obama and his appointed FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski (pictured).  (Source: Television Broadcast)

The rule ensures that content delivery services like YouTube can not be discriminated against by ISPs.
Limitations to new rules won't please everyone, though

It was the night before Christmas and all through the halls, not a creature was stirring -- except for the U.S. Federal Communication Commission's five man board.  They were busy delivering a special holiday present to internet firms -- the first publication of the net neutrality rules, which they (largely begrudgingly) passed on Wednesday.

The rules, available here (PDF; 1.0 MB) directly from the FCC, offer many predictable terms and a few seasonal surprises as well. 

I.  What's Inside

The rules will give the FCC for the first time the ability to regulate internet networks and prevent service providers from blocking any "lawful" traffic or throttling it. 

Some companies, such as Comcast, America's largest cable internet provider, have already been accused of trying to shake down internet content providers to maintain access.

One slight surprise is that the rules also make it difficult for service providers to accept fees to speed up traffic.  Many expected this to be legal. 

Telecom attorneys fought to allow it.  But Democratic Commissioner Michael J. Copps ardently opposed it, saying it would stifle innovation and make providing internet content a business only accessible by the wealthy.  The FCC apparently agreed with Mr. Copps' complaints, writing, "In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the "no unreasonable discrimination" standard."

II. Tiered Usage Fees?

Parts of the bill bear some ambiguity.  The bill does seem to allow for tiered data usage schemes, but it indicates that it would monitor such systems for abuse.  This make it unlikely that telecoms could achieve their dream of charging heavy users (such as those who stream Netflix) hundreds in monthly fees ($0.01-$0.03 MB fees has been proposed by some).  Ultimately, with little profit incentive, telecoms may be reticent to adopt tiered usage.

III. Throttling "Illegal" Traffic -- Allowed, but is it Feasible?

Another ambiguous concept is the idea that "illegal" traffic may be throttled.  States the document:
In the Open Internet NPRM, the Commission proposed that open Internet rules
be subject to reasonable network management, consisting of "reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to:(3) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (4) prevent the unlawful transfer of content."
The problem here is that ISPs like Comcast would have to prove that bittorrent or peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic was illegal.  Some legal services use these formats to distribute music, movies, or other file types, and the academic world often relies on them for file transfers.  All it would take would be one case of mistaken throttling and the ISPs could be slammed with big legal fees and fines.

Of course the government is considering, under the pending ACTA internet treaty, forcing taxpayers to fund the government monitoring networks for copyright infringement and other illegal behavior.  However, it is questionable whether this is even possible why maintaining sufficient service fees and avoiding false positives.

IV.  Mobile Limitations

As widely assumed, the document makes exceptions for mobile internet, something that angered FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's Democratic Commission colleagues.  The document states:
However, as explained in the Open Internet NPRM and subsequent Public Notice, mobile broadband presents special considerations that suggest differences in how and when open Internet protections should apply... Moreover, most consumers have more choices for mobile broadband than for fixed (particularly fixed wireline) broadband... In addition, existing mobile networks present operational constraints that fixed broadband networks do not typically encounter.  This puts greater pressure on the concept of "reasonable network management" for mobile providers.
The document suggests that mobile internet "openness" may be revisited by rulemakers once it becomes more established.  And pending schemes -- like the idea of "pay per site" revealed by top telecom firms at a recent conference -- may be ruled by the FCC to be outside the realms of "reasonable" management.

V. Could this "Gift" Get Returned?

Ultimately the rules could face challenges from multiple sources.  Telecom firms and internet service providers could file suit against the provisions in federal courts.  Their fate in such cases, though, would be uncertain.  While they won past suits, such as the spring federal court ruling that Comcast could throttle traffic, those wins came largely because the FCC had been unable to ratify an official series of rules -- which it has now done.  With those rules in place, the courts would likely be more hesitant to override the FCC and diminish its Congressionally granted ability to regulate national communications.

Other challenges could come from Congress.  Telecoms have funneled millions to the campaigns of certain politicians, which will likely help them secure future challenges to the legislation by Congress.  The funded candidates are largely Republicans -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) alone accepted from AT&T and Verizon $237,000 in direct donations, $3.6M in lobbyist-raised funding, and free personal service to his Arizona ranch.  Republicans are about to gain control the House of Representatives, but are in the minority in the Senate -- plus they do not control the White House.  Thus the possibility of legislative opposition remains very viable, but will have to wait for future election years.

ISPs, besides wireless firms, likely will be less than happy with the new rules, which set limits on their internet profiteering.  However, they still have many viable options to maintain their profits and tight control of local markets.  One option is to lobby state officials to ban citizens in counties or townships from banding together and creating their own faster, cheaper municipal Wi-Fi services.  ISPs have already tried to kill several municipal efforts in such a fashion.

For content deliverers like Google (owner of YouTube), the rules definitely fulfill a key item on their wish list.  But they have expressed concerns about the rules apparent allowance of telecoms breaching net neutrality in the mobile realm.  Thus it might not be exactly how they wished for it, but the ratified and published "In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices" regulations document still gives them something thankful for this year.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ekv on 12/28/2010 2:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm in a relatively small town and I can think of 3 (or 4) "choices" off the top of my head. Even if there were no choices, then my choice could be to start my own ISP. [Business model could be to simply stay afloat long enough to be bought out.]

Now, in all of USA there is zero competition against bureaucracy. I do not have the option of starting my own bureaucracy [hint: it is considered sedition]. So, with the ball in your court, "What do you propose to change the status quo in those circumstances?"

By cjohnson2136 on 12/28/2010 8:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
I live right outside of Baltimore and I have 2 chocies Comcast or Verizon. Problem is I cant get Verizon because they dont offer FIOS in my apartment so that only leaves me with Comcast. I have no choice so what I am just screwed because you have choices so they should leave it alone. Not everyone has many chocies.

By knutjb on 12/28/2010 8:41:36 AM , Rating: 2
So punish those who do have a choice with a bureaucratic mess to "help" a very small minority? Instead of adding more layers how about removing Federal, as well as local, interference. Some areas the local cities create a disincentive for new companies to enter the market. That might be part of the problem you have.

Does this mean no rules, of course not. When legislators and bureaucrats attempt to "fix" everything they usually create bigger problems than they solve. Not every problem can be solved with more rules.

By Kary on 12/29/2010 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Does that whole "Don't kill other people" bureaucracy keep you awake at night?
After having to deal with Comcast's blocking other ISPs by dropping prices in areas with competition(haven't seen personally, to be honest), slowing my network speed on P2P (at 4 am is letting me use more than 1/6th of my bandwidth really slowing anyone down?), making me pay to have access to web sites I don't even won't (thanks for that one ESPN)...heck, if it weren't illegal and they could make profit at it killing people might have been the next step (looking around nervously).

By Lugaidster on 12/28/2010 8:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
Start my own ISP? That's a whole lot of trouble just to get decent internet that doesn't regulate my speed based on what I'm doing.

Now, "with the ball in my court", I really don't care about bureaucracy. It's going to be there no matter where you go or what you do. It's a necessary evil, you either put up with it or you don't. America could have it way worse, but I guess I'm a glass half full guy. In any case, the bureaucracy part in this case will be there for the companies, not me. So I really couldn't care less, worst case scenario, it'll make it more of a hassle for them to screw me.

Now, if you really wan't to change that status quo, you could move to deserted place and create your own government, fight for anarchy so that everyone does what they want or you achieve something in between, create your own party (America could probably use a third political party just to increase competition) or whatever. But then again, the person starting that would probably get shot (America is, after all, a pretty conservative country and that's probably one of the reasons it's been so successful in the past).

I any case, that's not really the point of this discussion. We're talking about net neutrality and, at least as a concept, I see nothing wrong with it... Free speech, that's the whole point, right...?

By ekv on 12/28/2010 4:57:30 PM , Rating: 1
That's a whole lot of trouble...
And yet you're willing to take all that "trouble" and dump it on me, in the form of bureaucracy. Companies simply pass costs along to consumers.
the bureaucracy part in this case will be there for the companies
Which further strengthens my argument to start your own ISP, so you may experience the brunt of bureaucracy, which is not such a casual thing when you are the one fighting the paper-blizzard. We don't need more of that. It only serves to erect more barriers to entering the marketplace, i.e. it is anti-competitive.

Net neutrality is highly debatable, even as a concept, but especially as implemented by Genachowski. This guy was a major donor to the Obama campaign and was awarded the FCC chairmanship as a quid-pro-quo. The man is a lawyer for crying-out-loud, not a technologist. Great, he can write laws, but what vision does the guy have for the Internet? I think we just found out in the form of more regulation.

And all because your speed is being throttled? So what! My speed is limited on the freeway. My speed is limited going from cable to DSL. It's a fact of life. If you don't like the rules, start your own ISP and advertise the fact that you are "net neutral". If you succeed, great, I've got no problem with that. If you fail, then at least you didn't cost me. As it is, there will surely be an added cost to more bureaucracy. Thanks, for nothin' 8(

By Lugaidster on 12/28/2010 7:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
"And yet you're willing to take all that "trouble" and dump it on me, in the form of bureaucracy. Companies simply pass costs along to consumers."

Regulations are in place to make my life easier. Nothing is free (as in beer) in life, so sure they cost a little more. Prices will go up either way.

"Which further strengthens my argument to start your own ISP"

Do you know how much money do I need to actually start my own ISP? Enough said. I'd rather invest it in a better business if I had it. The entry barriers are already there, I don't care if they get higher to ensure that my content get's served unfiltered. The market isn't going to get more competitive for wired broadband access (Due to the high entry costs, permits, etc.). Wireless is a whole other beast and this set of rules don't apply (mostly).

"Net neutrality is highly debatable, even as a concept"

How? conduits of speech should always remain neutral. Internet is a conduit, so it should remain neutral. Free speech is a right, don't forget that.

"[Genachowski] can write laws, but what vision does the guy have for the Internet? "

He knows it should remain neutral. That's enough for me.

"And all because your speed is being throttled? So what! My speed is limited on the freeway. My speed is limited going from cable to DSL. It's a fact of life."

I was trying to make a point, but now that you make that comparison. If I'm paying for 30 Mbits I want that speed for all the content without regards of what it actually is and if I don't have that speed I expect it's because the server can't cope not because my ISP thinks it's not important. In the highway I'm not paying for my speed. Throttling is not the same as limiting.

By ekv on 12/28/2010 8:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Prices will go up either way.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't history demonstrate prices for most things 'computer' have gone down?
Do you know how much money do I need to actually start my own ISP?
So you haven't done any research into this. But you just KNOW that regulations are good for you and to hell with everybody else, they can pay for it. You're forcing me to pay for your bureaucracy. You neither know anything about business nor the cost of regulation. Furthermore, you don't even care.

The market for wired broadband could be a whole lot more competitive. Prices could go down. Entry costs could be lower. Permits AND bureaucracy could be streamlined and reduced. But, alas, you don't care. Pardon me, but such a position comes off as childish and more than a trifle indolent.
In the highway I'm not paying for my speed. Throttling is not the same as limiting.
You are paying for your speed (and your mileage for that matter). Throttling is essentially the same as a limit.

The implementation of your net neutrality ... is not so neutral. Don't force me to pay for it, since then it is no longer free.

By Lugaidster on 12/28/2010 10:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
"So you haven't done any research into this."
And you have? I know I don't have the money to start my own ISP.

"But you just KNOW that regulations are good for you and to hell with everybody else, they can pay for it."
I know that regulations are in order in non-competitive markets. Everything could be competitive, but when they are not they need regulation. When you have no form of regulation you get something like the OPEC (which can't be regulated BTW). Non-competitive doesn't necessarily mean monopoly. Again, I have said this somewhere else, there are 6 requirements for a free market to work. ISP market complies with, at most, 3. So yeah, it needs regulation. And regardless, as I said before. I want my content to be transfered, through whatever conduit I choose, unfiltered. Net neutrality ensures that, whether it's a competitive market or not.

"The market [...] could be a whole lot more competitive" Yes, but it isn't. That's the reality.

"Permits AND bureaucracy could be streamlined and reduced"
Yes, but that's arguable. Permits are there for a reason. You can't just eliminate them.

"But, alas, you don't care."
Don't take my words out of context. I don't care about the bureaucracy behind net neutrality, because I want net neutrality. Not bureaucracy in general. I'm not an extremist.

"You are paying for your speed. Throttling is essentially the same as a limit."
To who am I paying? I see a sign indicating a maximum. I'm not losing money if I'm not travelling at that speed. Whereas if my internet connection is running at half speed I am, because I could have had a slower plan to get the same speed. My internet connection is limited by my contract, I don't need, nor want, additional throttling based on some obscure QoS guidelines. Just as I don't want additional throttling while driving.

"The implementation of your net neutrality ... is not so neutral. Don't force me to pay for it, since then it is no longer free."
It's not my implementation, and I'm not forcing you to pay anything. If you get charged more it'll be by your ISP, not by me.

By ekv on 12/29/10, Rating: 0
By Lugaidster on 12/29/2010 7:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't and won't start a company every time I find one that doesn't fulfill my expectations as customer if there is no other alternative. Simple as that. I expect my rights as a consumer to be respected.

Regulations are a fact of life, deal with it. And please, stop saying it's my implementation, it's not.

If you don't understand that monopolies and oligopolies damage the consumer and the market then it's your problem. OPEC (because of it's actions in the past) was used as an example of what happens when such a problem is left unregulated. It's practically a textbook example. My laziness to do something about it or not isn't relevant to this discussion. Solutions or not, the problem is there and it was used as an example.

"Technology marches on. But an F'ing lawyer wouldn't understand that." I suppose you meant Genachowski... So you know him or every other lawyer in the country?

"Your entire argument boils down to [...] I want net neutrality." Yes, I think that it is a sound concept and I embrace it. To paraphrase someone else in this article: "No Internet provider [should] discriminate transmission of data based upon content. Data is data.". The Internet is a conduit and as such, it should remain neutral. If you don't agree then let's leave it at that.

"So what if there is some kind of emergency, if somebody else needs extra bandwidth, request denied because, remember? me first." It doesn't deny extra bandwidth, it denies priority access, that's different. If you want extra bandwidth, you can pay for it.

"You are paying for your speed." Not in the same way, it's not directly accountable, if you can't understand something as simple as that then there's no point in debating it. For it to be similar I would have to pay someone for the right to go at 60mph in the freeway, I'm not paying anyone for that. That makes it different.

"One thing I'm curious about, did anybody force you to sign the contract with your ISP?" Nope, I did it all by my self.

By ekv on 12/30/10, Rating: 0
"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki