FCC chairman formally proposes net neutrality rules
By Nilay Patel 
posted Sep 21st 2009 2:07PM
posted Sep 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
This will just accelerate the move to bandwidth caps.
here comes tired pricing for application use over IP, dammit!
And slower more expensive internet for all!
Thanks Obama FCC. You are ruining the internet!
Hey, I'll welcome bandwidth caps over data discrimination any day. Plus, it's not like you actually get 'all you can eat' data with those 'unlimited' plans. I'll rather AT&T advertise the data plans at 5G/month than UNLIMITED with a hidden footnote of a 5G cap.
you're very uneducated you know that? Besides the Telecom FUD what reason do you see to cause this?
what the hell are you people talking about? this is great news if this is passed isp would no longer be able to discriminate against what we download they would be nothing more than dumb pipes transferring data. also, this isn't going to cause bandwidth caps. they only reason caps are put in place is because isp are to lazy in invest in infrastructure so even if this wasn't passed bandwidth caps would of been put in place anyway.
As a telecom company shareholder I demand the telecom providers switch to a rate per MB of data used. Free up to some small level and $X per MB after that. Problem solved. Boy, that there barrack run gubmint sure be smart.
This is pretty simple.
+1 for big downloaders (i.e. torrent users)
-1 for casual web users
The net effect of this policy will be an increase of traffic on the internet. Either the networks retain similar infrastructure and performance slows down OR infrastructure upgrades and those costs are passed on to the consumer. Actually, the most likely situation is that there will be minimal network improvements and very large price spikes.
It's not liking big ISP's are going to simply enhance their network for more usage and then take those costs in the shorts. They will end up on your bill and my bill. For big DL'ers the cost increase will be worth it. For casual users you will get no benefit but have a higher bill.
Typical right wing tactic: Tell everyone that the plan does opposite of whatever Obama intends to do. Healthcare? He wants to kill grandma! Reign in on telecoms abuses and stifling innovation? He's trying to kill our internets!
bjsguess that one aspect that have gain from this new rules
but you have to think about what about all those legit torrents. also there are some good things that can now happen and maybe not be apparent now. such as IPTV, IP telephone(not voip) is some of the things that can happen now since they are not restricted by the broadband provider.
There is no way that net neutrality is bad for consumers ever. I'm shocked and appalled that anyone bright enough to read Engadget thinks otherwise on this situation.
Net neutrality is great. Big government is not. You can have one without the other. The unintended consequences of this regulation, however well intended, willlikely have the oposite effect of limiting competition and empowering the telecoms.
From the Cato Institute:
:New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today's network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms."
Laughton, I couldn't agree more.
OMG POLITICAL INDOCTRINATION!!! CENSOR IT!!!
His education speech was nothing of that sort, but the Republicans just won't give up.
That's AWESOME NEWS!!! Freedom finally!!!!!!!
FREEDOM
FREEDOM
FREEDOM to downloads....
What a disgusting development, and sheep all to happy to put government ropes on us just so they think they will be able to have all the happy bit torrent downloads they can stomach!
Bullshit! Do you knuckleheads not realize how much power you are putting in the hands of people that DONT answer to you? ISPs can be dumped for another, but the FCC WILL NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK about some complaint from some geek when he finds that "net neutrality" may keep the "evil" ISPs under lock and key, but government will have a nice easy road right into your computer.
Just ask the Belgians how well neutrality worked for them. And THINK about trading freedom, even if its the freedom of people you dont think deserve it, for the E-nanny state.
I'm guessing you are one of those people who run around screaming "WTF SOCIALIST" and "I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK".
Now, I'm against BitTorrent downloading of illegal software. That's a big part of it.
But other things, such as dumping your bandwidth for certain things, are just wrong. The government is supposed to step in and fix the problems. Bush let all the problems get so bad there was no turning back. You're acting like he did nothing wrong and Obama is to blame for every crisis there is.
Get with the program.
"But other things, such as dumping your bandwidth for certain things, are just wrong."
WHERE IS THIS TAKING PLACE?? I'm still trying to find the "crisis" that people keep talking about, but cant seem to provide an personal example that doesn't involve massive file downloads and streaming on their part.
F*ing Obama-bots will sell out every freedom and liberty for a bucket of kool-aid and a warm puppy.
Mycroft, the ISPs don't believe in net neutrality, so yes you can have one without the other, but it's very unlikely. So unfortunately we have to allow the government to force their hand since apparently they don't listen to their consumers. Although now would be a good time to do so if they DON'T want government intervention.
so i can tether my iphone and not pay extra is what you're telling me :)
and I can use slingplayer over 3g.
YAY.
Not quite. The ISP(AT&T if you're talking about the iPhone) has to allow everything through but it can still pressure Apple not to accept such applications into the market. If you can figure out a way to do such things without needing any kind of 3rd party application then sure, you can.
As I understand it an application is not required just a carrier settings file that allows it. The iPhone supports tethering natively AT&T just needs to allow it and currently it's only blocked on the users end not the towers
@Victor
That was the case before OS 3.1. Now with OS 3.1 the carrier files have to be signed. Sure, there'll be hacks to get around that in the future, but it's still not as simple as it once was (if you updated).
Yes, if you're jailbroken than you can tether and user SlingPlayer over 3G regardless of what the FCC or AT&T attempt to dictate.
Wow, a thread with content. @Mark... good points all. Will be interesting to see how this develops, since obviously writing that editorial or giving that speech didn't change anything. I doubt that all of a sudden my Sling Player application will start working over 3G. I assume there will have to be some lawsuits or FCC fines against individual companies (maybe the whole Google Voice thing say), to set some precedents. Will Apple be allowed to do this sort of thing while AT&T cannot? I'd say "Situation Cloudy, Ask Again Later!"
One can only hope.
Until this issue is resolved I'll just keep downloading my > 100MB podcasts and watch slingplayer videos over 3G using my MyFi, which is still doing all of this over 3G its just that the iPhone doesn't know that...
on the surface it sounds like yes. a company can't say there is internet access, but only for the things we like.
however it doesn't mean that they can't put up bandwidth caps that would then cut you off from access, or cause you to have to pay more. something with tethering is more likely to invoke
also there's this 'harmful' thing. if a company can prove a certain function is harmful they might be able to get around the rule. so hopefully the rules will be conditional. such as ATT says they don't have the structure to support tethering without harming the non tethers. the FCC says 'okay no tethering for now. but you have X time to get things up and running or pay a huge fine/credit to your customers'
frankly I would rather see "no more simlocks on smart phones" than worry about the rest. although I am glad to see the possible ding on comcast. they shouldn't be allowed to pre-filter what everyone is doing. not when they have an out via the DCMA so long as they react if something hinky is pointed out to them.
WIN!
whats with the USA-flag in the back?
I don't know. What's with the basketball in the back?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with them being a US government agency
in soviet russia, internet uses u!
I just ordered an 3G phone and it happened to be iPhone.
Would you like a cookie?
...
well, if he's not gonna take it, i will!
I bought a 3G phone that wasn't an iPhone, and I'm capable of obtaining cookies on my own. This utterly useless fact was brought to you by: someone just as boring as you are.
Can't wait to see how the rules in place to "protect" us eventually get turned on us and protect the powers that be.
If only we didn't have a government, then we'd really be safe from corporate abuse.
...because we are so safe now with huge governement.
The role of the federal government should simply be to ensure that the union of states is protected from foreign threats, and that the few commonalities between the members have a universal standard within which they can operate (i.e. federal highway system, federal monetary system, etc). It's a slippery slope, to be sure, and I'm afraid we slipped about a century ago, and we've been falling ever since.
Now we need something like this in Canada, where the CRTC has taken a firm stance to let the Internet police itself. It's helped us gain many rights, but has also legitimized practices like traffic shaping.
Just what I've been thinking. I figure that since the current government's attempts at copyright law updates have been based on a deep research method of "what did the U.S. Government do," we can hope for the same thing with net neutrality...though I think that that particular research method only works in Canadian government when it would benefit big businesses and hose the consumer.
Let's hope this speeds 4G network build outs to support demanded bandwidth and encourages competition based on price rather than exclusively available devices.
I wonder what the astro-turf movement do next on this subject.
Does this mean anything for espn360.com, to have access to it now?
Blow it out of your ass, Huffington Post.
This is a great first step, but what we really need is an end to the enforced monopolization of ISP's. I don't care how they do it. I don't care if it's government internet(socialist service > monopoly service any day), having only 1 choice in ISP company(yes, a government monopoly would be much better than a corporate one) for any single area hurts everyone except that ISP. Fix it.
Would that not mean and end to pirating? Plus a government run ISP could be dangerous...imagine if they started filtering anything "bad" or "negative" about a recent law that passed. Big Brother is watching.
@flyersph9: Considering the net neutrality talk in this article versus the wishes of the ISPs currently in charge, I'd be more concerned about the corporate Big Brother than a government one when it comes to the internet.
That would make sense. Turn the backbone over to the USPS. It was email that killed the USPS so they take over the internet and everything is back to normal. Actually I'm only partially kidding. The internet is called the information super highway and the government has been in charge of highways for a long time.
I doubt the government will setup their own internet service BUT I do think we American's pay more for internet than other European countries. Same goes for Wireless providers. Take a look at all the wireless provider's. They all are the same prices for the minutes and some messaging.
AT&T: 450Min - $39.99 + SMS Add $5
VERI: 450Min - $39.99 + SMS Add $10
SPRI: 450Min - $39.99 + SMS Add $10 for the Messaging Plan.
TMO: 300Min - $29.99 + SMS Add $5
I found all the same minute plans they cost the same, besides Tmobile ofcourse. All the prices are the same for 900Mins, 1350Mins, etc... Seem's like PRICE FIXING. Isn't that illegal? Yeah different providers have different features, rollover, select 5 people for free calls, better coverage than others but does that mean it's ok to have all the same prices?
Heh, there will never be a "government ISP". There are government domains(.mil, .gov, etc.). Those domains are fairly restrictive but that's for good reason.
I think in the bigger picture, the three largest telcos owning the backbone of this country is the best move. All the spam mail and advertisements is better absorbed electronically rather than wasting millions of tons more paper by doing it through USPS, not to mention the extra fossil fuel required to ship all this junk mail to the people around the nation. Let USPS hadle package shipping and bulk freight. It's better that way.