Our old friends at the FCC have started to
put words into action, as the net neutrality regulations
proposed by Chairman Julius Genachowski have now entered the rule-drafting stage. The provision of most import here is that broadband providers would be forbidden from
traffic discrimination or
"management," and compelled to provide equal access and services to their users, irrespective of the type or bandwidth uptake of their internet activity. Of course, this is
hardly a bumpless road, with Senator John McCain proposing the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, whose sole reason for existing will be to prevent the FCC from putting those rules through. Even if things do go smoothly, though, "reasonable network management" will still be an available recourse for telecoms, where it is necessary to block spam and illegal content, such as child pornography. Which sounds kinda like censorship to us. Look, we have no more interest in child porn than we do a pair of
Lady Gaga Heartbeats, but any time we hear of internet providers having either the right
or responsibility to block content, we get an uneasy feeling in the pit of our libertarian stomachs. Anyhow, the great big gears of regulation have finally started turning, and we can look forward to more political wrangling as the rules take shape over the coming months.
posted Oct 23rd 2009 6:45AM
How can somebody who doesn't even USE the internet even have an opinion in this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2403704/John-McCain-technology-illiterate-doesnt-email-or-use-internet.html
Lobby money talking, I presume...
Nah, just typical republican stance, screw the people, oppress freedom, cater to big money needs.
Beast are you being purposefuly ironic or just a moron? You realize that McCain is working towards the opposite of "oppress freedom" right?
This whole bill is about internet censorship and while it may have good intentions (child pron), it could also be used as a means for the government to silence internet cites they dissagree with... Hence McCain and his legion stepping in and saying "no"...
McCain's bill sole purpose is to prevent FCC ability to regulate and enforce the law, it does not ensure any freedom but on the contrary, it gives providers the ability to maintain current status quo without any fear of the law or any agency to enforce the law upon them.
Derek: Net neutrality has nothing to do with censorship. It essentially forbids ISPs from making deals with content and service providers to give them preferential treatment versus competing content and service providers. The government will not pick the winners and losers on the Internet, and neither will the ISPs; the market (i.e. the people) will decide.
If your ISP stopped allowing you to access ronpaul.com, or slowed down foxnews.com because they signed a deal with CNN, you would quickly become a supporter of net neutrality. I'm sure your response is that you would just change ISPs, but in some markets there is only one broadband ISP. In monopoly markets, sensible regulation is a necessary step.
McCain's bill only supports large corporations that want to begin making content deals or protect their own content. It is loser for Internet users, and that's why Google, Verizon, and others are banding together to oppose it.
Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with this bull about preventing Comcast from blocking access to Google for some dingbat reason that none of these guys can come up with.
IT HAS NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT!
This is a FCC power grab that is hiding behind crap like that to get gullible geeks, who think their torrent farms will be protected, to go out and shill for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uULNBso0BU
(this is what it's all about)
You want to give the Feds an inch on the net, then dont be so damn stupid to thing they arent going to go for the mile!
L_A_Y: Money is the "dingbat reason" that an ISP would restrict content or differentiate grade of service. By signing a deal with Bing, they could slow down every Google search. They could hamstring every online video service so that they stop bleeding customers from their broadcast service or their own online video service. They could then make more money (or at least think that they would). Last time I checked, corporations are in business to make money, and why this isn't incredibly obvious baffles me.
Creating a neutral, level playing field is not a "power grab." It is, in fact, the opposite of that. We have dozens of examples where government does this, and we have a functioning society as a result.
I won't even respond to your ridiculous slippery slope argument. Do you wear a tin-foil hat as you scan the skies for black helicopters?
@ Look_Around_You
Have you ever heard about the homeland security act of 2002? it gives all the power federal agencies need to act online, and guess what... it was a republican idea.
That kind of bursts your bubble.
The theory is that competition amongst content providers would give a steady flow of money to ISPs, and therefore we the people wouldn't need to pay for something as essential as Internet service.
The problem with that theory is that we have had net neutrality way too long. ISPs know they can charge us, so they will, regardless of what money they make from content providers. And since they are the only game in town, or at least an oligopoly, nothing is preventing them from basically killing off the Internet in the long run through instant-gratification deals.
My answer: don't fix what ain't broke.
Another perspective:
There's nothing stopping a content provider from charging ISPs for content (e.g. ESPN 360). So, if ISPs suddenly started charging for service, those providers would probably rebound in kind by charging for the content itself.
Would the net effect be zero?
I'm not sure what that would ultimately do for the market. Maybe it would work itself out.
LMAO @ look around you: You linking Glenn Beck the douche tool @ Fox explains it all. I bet you were really upset when our President even called Fox out.
You have no real clue your a tool and don't even know it. Of course Rupert Murdoch is against net neutrality.
Somebody who has NEVER used the internet and never will. He also clearly has no desire whatsoever to understand what the internet is or what it's for.
@Beastage: Yeah, because the Democrats are perfectly innocent to all of this, right? I mean, there can only be one wrong party here.
IMO, the only "real" neutrality is one without any laws or regulations. If Comcast starts filtering your content, you simply sign up with another provider. Somewhere along the line, people have gotten the idea that we are powerless without the government because the government is taking all the money that gives us power. They have you thinking that businesses are bad, mmkay. They attack the one thing that makes the world run in order to get you to vote in the next Representative or President that tells you they are protecting you from the evil Insurance companies that government is controlling themselves. Think about it for a second before you go off spouting the typical ____ party did this, and ___ party did that. Both of them are responsible for this and the American public is being played like a fiddle.
Anyone in here that voted for this old fool should RUN OFF AND BURY THEIR HEAD IN SHAME!!
MCCAIN/PALIN? REALLY?! That alternate reality would have been a worse disaster for the planet, PERIOD!!!
Andir3.0
I'd +1000 you if the commenting system let me.
L_A_Y: Money is the "dingbat reason" that an ISP would restrict content or differentiate grade of service. By signing a deal with Bing, they could slow down every Google search. They could hamstring every online video service so that they stop bleeding customers"
AND TELL ME WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED?
You are accusing companies of doing stuff that has not taken place!
You are willing to give the feds a massive power grab over a F'ing theory?
What the hell is wrong with you people?
@Andir3.0
"If Comcast starts filtering your content, you simply sign up with another provider"
I think you've missed the whole point here. Comcast was already caught restricting VOIP content. And in most of the USA, our choices are either Comcast or the regional Bell telecom. For the most part, this leaves us with the monopoly cable company or the monopoly landline telcom.
It doesn't take an economics degree to know that competition (which is required for true net neutrality) only happens when you have 3 or more choices. I won't even bother trying to go into why the telcoms have tried (and usually successfully) to kill every chance of new competition that local governments have tried to implement to give us the 3rd option.
"LMAO @ look around you: You linking Glenn Beck the douche tool @ Fox explains it all. I bet you were really upset when our President even called Fox out.
You have no real clue your a tool and don't even know it. Of course Rupert Murdoch is against net neutrality."
And you are going to get around to explaining to me what was presented was made up when?
Yeah, somehow I think I'll be waiting a hell of a long time.
Ahhh, nothing like a typical government power-grab justified by theoretical boogey-men. What exactly is the problem with the current system? I'm not talking possibilities here, I'm talking about actual things happening that net neutrality legislation is supposed to fix. Can't bring up the Comcast thing either, because under the current system, they got fined. The argument here is ridiculous, Google wants net neutrality because its afraid an ISP could give preference to its chosen search engine, yet at the same time, they are acting antithetically to these principles by locating there servers inside of telecoms in a process called edge caching, in an effort to, you guessed it, make there search work faster than the rest. How is that fair to the little guy? People need to look past the PR-titled "Net Neutrality" here and realize that the argument in front of us is between two types of business that want to tilt the playing field in their advantage. As always, the government will step in and make things more tilted.
@Andir While your statement is very interesting there are millions of people who don't have the option of switching. You seem Libertarian. When are we going to elect someone to office?
@rightwingnutjobs: I like McCain, he's a good man BUT any bills the Republicans put out that have the word Freedom, Patriot, Security in the title means that the citizens are fucked because big business will have complete control (or in the case of Homeland Security a bloated worthless division of government that needs disbanding). I don't trust AT&T, Comcast, Cox, or any of them to regulate themselves anymore than I do the banks. You right wingers should be jumping on this net neutrality bandwagon, it's good for you too. The only people its not good for are superrich assholes who run those billion dollar corporations. The effects of this bill will have minimal effects on ISP's. All it does is keep them from screwing us with unfair charges.
"
Have you ever heard about the homeland security act of 2002? it gives all the power federal agencies need to act online, and guess what... it was a republican idea.
That kind of bursts your bubble."
And?
You think I supported the HSA just because the GOP came up with it?
Stop being so damn obtuse as to think that this is some Elephant V. Donkey pissing match.
This is about the free market and liberty V. Federal overloardship.
And these sheep that think big brother Barack is pushing this to ensure that some batshit insane fantasy of Comcast charging you to go to Google doesnt come true, are living with their heads up their asses.
And just like the GOPers that supported the HSA only to have it now put out a report citing them as potential threats to "homeland security", YOU will be bitten by this too.
@Izzy: It's like D W said:
It doesn't take an ... degree to know that competition only happens when you have 3 or more choices. I won't even bother trying to go into why the [Dems and Repubs] have tried (and usually successfully) to kill every chance of new competition that local governments have tried to implement to give us the 3rd option.
;)
There's corruption on every bracket of it, but giving power to the government (whom was explicitly limited by our Constitution) is not the answer here. When you centralize power, you increase the chance of corruption. The only thing the Federal (anything) should be doing is keeping the state laws in check and protecting our borders. Less government is more Freedom for you, me, business, and our right to choose the proper businesses instead of being told by our government which businesses should stay open (cough, GM, cough). If your state enforced a law that was overly restrictive to ISPs jacking up the price, they'll only pay for it in lost populace income when people move out of state.
I wish water company that feed McCain's house have freedom to put whatever liquid into the pipe. Sweet freedom. Well, if he doesn't like the urine taste in his water, he can just "switch" to another water company. Or take a shower with arrowhead. He can afford that with all the money he's getting from ISPs.
Hrmmm... except for the fact that when he said he needs help to send e-mails, he was talking about the fact that he physically is unable to do so, due to the injuries he had received from "real" torture when he was serving as a fighter pilot for the US Navy - not the fabricated means of torture that liberal idiots have coerced on the US population.
@Andir3.0
I hope you realize that that's the reason we need this. Because of the lack of regulation within the telecom market. There are many situations where only a single ISP provides service to an area. That is not competition. There is no way for the user to choose with his/her money. Eventually, businesses will get to the point that they've grown so fat and large that they will begin to screw over their own customer base. It's not some fairy tales; it's happened before (the trusts of the 1900's) and it is happening now (AIG). Businesses get to a point where the only way to provide a fair and even ground for the customer is to regulate it in some way (this is a far too proven fact).
@Look FFS man do some effing research, read the arstechnica.com article on it or one of the other thousands of available. But for the love of god, try for once in your annoyingly pathetic internet existence not to be a complete ass hat.
@Andir So in my neighborhood we have att dsl ONLY, ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY. Who am i supposed to sign up with instead of them.
Reminder, ONLY att DSL. ONLY! I am not alone in this. You people need to get off your Glenn Beck idiot fest high and look at THE REALITY.
You don't have access to (albeit slow) dial up services? There's always a choice. You may not LIKE the choice, but it's there.
I am a Republican, and think McCain is way off base. As far as I can tell he's a rare member of the Republican party that's not in favor of Net Neutrality. He has always been a maverick in the party, and I knew the minute he was chosen as the 'Republican' candidate that our party was screwed and would be tarnished by his campaign and the things he did. That Sarah Palin stunt was ridiculous, too.
I think I know where McCain is coming from, though. His primary concerns are military and economic (which are more related than many of you would think). I think by supporting the FCC bill for net neutrality it effectively limits the ability of the government to manage internet communications and internet based enemy/terrorist endeavours. He's adding the child porn bit to pull at the heart strings of the Republican parents out there. I'm sure he's also concerned about the "rights" of business to run how they want to. There is something to be said for the perspective that these telecoms have built the internet from the ground up via cables strung alongside roads. The government had nothing to do with that, so perhaps the businesses should have the freedom to operate how they want to operate.
I disagree entirely with him, though. The government's job is to ensure my freedoms, nothing more. Telecoms deciding what websites get served and what don't prohibit my freedom of speech. This is why Republicans like small government, it allows us to have more freedoms. Sometimes you have to do a little regulation to make sure our freedoms are secured, though. McCain's move is away from the small government hallmark of the Republican party, which is consist with his position on the fringes of the Republican party.
There's no need to get emotional about it.
Inbox OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM
*explodes*
Typical Conservative:
Working against an increase in regulation.
Typical Liberal:
Not getting that that's actually a good thing because they read John McCain and assume he's "oppressing" people with the "status quo."
I guess we can HOPE for a CHANGE in the mentality of people jumping to conclusions.
@Kevin
So your tellin me that a former presidential candidate doesn't have enough function in his hands to send an email... and how exactly was he supposed to sign a bill? Last time I checked it takes about the same amount effort to do either one.
@animeghost - There's a huge difference between writing and typing. Different muscles are used, hand/joint positions are changed, etc. Why do you think carpal tunnel syndrome is so prevalent in this day and age? Because typing & using computers are now ways of life.
I wish ISPs were just gatekeepers and nothing more. Ill pay you once a month to let me use your tubes at a certain speed and thats it. Don't slow my connection speed for using torrents, cap my monthly usage, have the ability to block sites, or even the ability to see what kind of data i'm sending and receiving. And the government is there to protect my freedoms and not give companies the freedom to do as they please when I only have one broadband service provider in my area. This is known as a monopoly, if there were 4 or 5 ISPs that anyone could go to then the competition would leave things open and keep prices down so until then it is the governments job to protect the people.
@nicolasjohnadams and everyone else who thinks this is just the government stepping in.
That is just a common discourse that is all over the news now; government bad, we know we know.
These FCC regulations have nothing to do with controlling the public, they are meant to protect YOUR rights. get it? The government protects rights, it's the basis of government that any text book will tell you. Everyone is so touchy right now the government can't even do anything to help you without someone making it demonic. If you let people tell you that Net Neutrality is going to interfere with you it's a lie. The idea that if you let business do whatever they want is not good for media and the internet. You don't want the Government regulating what you see and do, legally, on the internet. So why the hell would you want to give business the ability to do that? Because a loophole in policy that was meant for the TV era allows companies to do just that with the Internet.
The idea of net neutrality is that Telecoms can act as a business all they want as long as they don't infringe on your personal liberty to have unhindered access to the internet and to prevent costs from being invented such as tiering or packaging internet sites into bundles. There are a lot of other aspects but essentially it's to stop certain companies from preferring their own content over another.
If you let this McCain bill pass then you'll all be paying more for the Internet. If anything Net Neutrality ensures that small media companies can have a chance on the Internet instead of being muscled out by the big broadcast networks who desperately want to reclaim their control over YOUR media. That's what TV was all about and these laws that deny Net Neutrality are attempting to maintain that status quo. So get off your ass right now and go do something about it. Don't let them try and reverse the argument on you and make you think you are protecting YOUR interests by supporting McCain's bill.
who cares if McCain never used the internet, he knows what hes talking though, i support his proposal, McCain FTW!
Sheep.
(Baaaaahhhh, Baaaaahhh!)
Ironic that the people that have no clue of what the FCC is going to be pushing through, no idea who's running the place, but wholly supports what they are doing, is calling anyone a sheep.
Look around you get the hell outta here. You have no clue of what your arguing against. Without knowing you're standing up for these douche corporations, who even have less authority than the FCC to be writing legislation. And sadly for you (but it's actually a good thing) Net Neutrality will prevail, and the internet will not change. And you can continue to rant and rave where ever you please.
PS if you guys want any chance in 2010-12 then you really need to get rid of Glenn Beck and your other extreme conservatives who are just bringing your party down.
bobblehead: It is you that have no idea what you are talking about. You are following the typical BS "Business is the enemy" line you are being fed. Business is NOT the enemy here. The government you are ignorantly standing up for is the one making businesses charge excessive fees through organizations like the FCC and through regulations. If the government would give us back the money they are stealing from us, we could vote with our pockets and keep business in check ourselves... but thanks to the government, taxes and regulations we only have a few choices in internet providers, insurance, and pretty much every other industry and feel powerless because we can't choose. That loss of control is our government's doing. Not "douche corporations" as you put it. If government would have stepped out of the mix, we'd have two less "douche corporations" making automobiles today, but I suppose you supported that move, for the people, right?
While i believe that businesses take care of themselves and captialism works, it doesn't work in semi- monopolistic sections. When people have little to no choice between service providers especially for high-speed internet, which happened because companies pay for these contracts and if you wanted to bring up your own service provider it would take billions of dollars and years to even get close to infrastructure, then regulation is needed, other markets I COMPLETELY agree with you because in those markets you have a choice. I don't agree with everything the FCC does nor do i disagree with it, but telling the ISP that you must treat every business equally does not raise a hair on my head.
This the same McCain that voted FOR rape, in order to protect corporate interests.
Why are citizens voting FOR fools like this?
@andrey
ay andry or whoever the fuck you are get the fuck off my dick bitch! go get your dick fix from some one else bitch... pasty ass white boy living in your moma's basement! i know you love dick, but i aint gonna give it you! motha fucka! ay who gives a fuck bout this ranking shit eat my shit, fuckin knock the shit outta you if you were standing near me... have your internetz funs on this blog cuz thats the only way you know how to, hahhahahahahahahaha!!
(dont matter what the fuck you say bitch youre ass is mine including that lame mutha fucka on that other post bwahahahahahaha!!)
i know what i'm talking about, but i dont think you do though, feel sorry for y'all haters who have down ranked me or people who responded to my comments.... DONE!
I presume the bill title is ironic.
No, not at all. The bill proposes freedom from governmental regulation and censorship of the internet. Did you even read the entire post?
For whom? Only regulation will ensure fair access for all.
@good grief - Sorry you can't reply because we, as your ISP, have decided Engadget isn't a valuable Interwebs destination for you. You are welcome to pay an additional $25 per month if you'd like access to our Tier 11 selection of valuable Interwebs destinations, however Engadget is not included in that selection. That'd be Tier 12, for an additional $15 a month. Thank you for calling MegaISP help desk. Your call is important to us.
@posterchild: If you didn't have government regulations keeping MegaISP as your only provider, you'd have a choice to move to someone else.
Andir, you speak the truth. The child most likely doesn't have the option to change his ISP because his parents are the ones paying for it.
It's a question of whose freedoms are being protected. To protect the freedoms of consumers, you have to limit the freedoms of the ISPs. If you protect the freedoms of the ISPs, they will in turn limit the freedom of consumers. Just saying you promote "freedom" doesn't mean you're going to help the population as a whole. Supporting the freedom of rapists and murderers isn't good for everyone, but it has that magic buzz word, "FREEDOM!"