FCC chairman formally proposes net neutrality rules
By Nilay Patel 
posted September 21st 2009 2:07PM
posted September 21st 2009 2:07PM
We knew it was going to happen, but we're still stoked to report that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski formally proposed a set of net neutrality rules this morning, calling them "the fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the internet." There are two big new rules, which say broadband providers of any kind can't discriminate against content or applications, and must be transparent about their network management policies -- a big change for wireless carriers like Verizon and AT&T, who would have to open their networks to scrutiny, and a direct response to Comcast's secretive packet-filtering techniques. What's more, Genachowski also proposed that four existing agency policies be granted formal rule status, meaning network operators would be required to allow users to access the content, apps, and services of their choice, and they would also be required to allow any "non-harmful" devices to connect to their networks. We knew all that open-access hullabaloo was leading up to something good.All told, these are some big policy changes, and while we're excited that the FCC is this gung-ho about net neutrality -- seriously, Genachowski comes off as the best kind of fanboy in his followup HuffPo editorial, it's kind of awesome -- we're still only cautiously optimistic, since the rulemaking process has only just begun and there are some potentially huge loopholes for network management and prevention of copyright infringement. But those are details to be worked out -- for now, the real news is that net neutrality is on its way to becoming the law of the land, and that's enough to warm even our darkened robot hearts. Check a video of Jules after the break.
Read - Genachowski's speech proposing net neutrality rules
Read - Genachowski's Huffington Post followup editorial
Read - The FCC's new openinternet.gov website
Read - WSJ piece with industry reactions
People forget that if the government allowed real competition between utilities that if one blocked facebook, you could simply find another provider that didn't. This battle to keep your business is called the free market and keeps business fair.
The fact that the government feels that it must limit a monopoly it itself enforced is ironic at best and a tragic loss of freedom at the worst.
It's alarming how many people in here (and other blogs) don't understand net neutrality at all. And these people are voters....
Installing your wireless router at home doesn't qualify you to comment with certainty on the issue. :)
But resizing lolcats do?
want to make your ISP look bad. If they do bandwidth caps i would love to form a 511 PAC and make commercials showing how i can overnight a 32gig flash drive for less money and in less time than the internet companies will charge
Its been done:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/pigeon-flies-faster-broadband-internet,8635.html
This is well intended legislation with terrible consequences. Yes, Comcast will not be able to block or slow bit torrent illegal content BUT you will also no longer be able to tune your network speeds or needs for video vs voip vs download (big file streams) vs surfing (low latency burst).
The big issue is that government regulation only allows you a single provider per technology (DSL, cable) that is. If Media Com, Concast, ATT, Local Guy 1-10 all were able to provide you cable service and compete, you could drop one carrier with crappy service for another. If all companies (unlikely) were out to screw you... then someone smart enough would start a business providing service to tailor to your needs.
So one government regulation creates another creates another creates another. Republican or Democrat this is standard big government interference. You thought 1080p IP streamed video was just around the corner? now you can wait about 2 extra years since it's illegal for your cable provider to add priority to that traffic on your behalf.
You should sit down and think some more, think for yourself, no need to come back and correct yourself, we'll know the conclusion :)
Nice scenario you painted there btw, an ISP throttling me and my highly compressed medium res tv torrent so some rich guy uptown can pointlessly use the bandwidth to stream 1080p, yeah great commercial that is, I'm all warm inside.
Guys, seriously, at least read the damn linked articles before you rant all over the place. As far as saying that all torrenting should be legal, here's an actual quote:
"Of course, network operators will be permitted to implement reasonable network management practices to address issues such as spam, address copyright infringement, and otherwise ensure a safe and secure network for all users."
So. He mentions that Comcast was blocking all P2P downloads. And that was not acceptable, since it included LEGAL torrent downloads like watching shows from Revision 3 say, who use bittorrent to download their content. But he may be perfectly okay with them installing filtering software based on illegal copyright infringement for all I know. We don't really know how this will play out yet.
How about the way they can block and/or slow down content NOT provided through them? Also there was a story about some ISP blocking a site that was critical of them, how can they be allowed to do that?
THAT is the main reason why I support net neutrality. Not exactly to allow torrent downloads, but the fact that they can slow you down from getting content other than through them smacks of anti-competitiveness. Also I don't want to be told what sites I can and cannot visit, I'm not a kid.
Does anyone else understand that now it's illegal for some small "google like" ISP to come in and eat up the competition by offering a "bit torrent optimized" internet.
That is, If comcast, att, etc all pissed you off enough I could reconcile my differences with all the "legal" bit torrent traffickers and give you the following:
1. service with a small premium ($5/month)
2. prioritize bit torrent packets
3. host my own tracker servers
4. cache common "bits" on local servers
5. help link you to other on network people for fastest downloading
NOPE, can't do that, it's illegal now.
As much as everyone thinks ISP's are evil, they are trying to profit the most and piss the least number of people off. As wireless alternatives become closer and closer to reality, the idea of single providers (government helped I might add) are a thing of the past.
Competition between companies will force pricing down, force speed up and breed new service options only imagined today. A single "pipe" stifles advancement and investment in new creative ways to get the most out of existing and new architecture.
This is fantastic news!
I love how everyone talking negative about this brings up torrents. Torrents actually have less impact on networks than traditional client/server networks. If you are downloading a torrent (and not all torrents are illegal, by the way) and other seeders are on the same ISP as you, then you are not having to leave the ISPs network to download the file. With traditional client/server downloading you may have to go throught 3 or 4 different ISPs to get to the server. The issue come in when you have heavy users (who may or may not be using torrents) using up the majority of the bandwidth and slowing down the connection for others on the same network. This proposed legislation does not prevent ISPs from implementing methods to control this. It simply prevents ISPs from denying you from downloading or viewing sites that they don't like.
Some of the commentators here seem to get their "mis-information" from Glenn Beck !!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210026
Net Neutrality will suppress freedom of speech and all that jazz.. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.