We never had any doubt that Comcast's
anti-net-neutrality court victory would prove to be more of a defeat in the long run, and that's exactly how it's shaping up: some 74 Democratic members of Congress have voiced concerns about the FCC's plan to
re-classify broadband as a more highly-regulated "telecommunications service" instead of as an "information service" in letter sent to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski today, and a group of Democratic senators and representatives are planning a series of meetings in June with the goal of revamping US telecommunications law in general. According to Senate staffers who spoke to the
Washington Post, the idea isn't to pre-empt the FCC's plan, but rather to bring the law into alignment with the modern market instead of trying to fit a round peg into a square hole -- our current telecom law was enacted in 1996 and is based on law written in 1934, so a more modern revamp could bring sweeping changes to the way broadband providers are able to sell and manage their services.
We don't know what the specific agenda is yet, but we'd bet the FCC's recent finding that
there's no "effective competition" in the wireless industry is sure to play a big part in these discussions, and we wouldn't be surprised to see some serious talk about cable providers and set-top hardware as well. Whatever happens, we'll be keeping a sharp eye on these meetings -- this is the first time we've seen the government take up the issue of modern telecommunications policy with this level of interest and momentum, and we've got a feeling some big things are afoot.
posted May 24th 2010 6:04PM
@stabbytheicepic Here's what I just heard you say, "hyperbole, hyperbole, and hyperbole. Then hyperbole, more hyperbole, I say hyperbole!"
No ISP is even suggesting doing what you're talking about.
@Akston
[[Even with the limited monopolistic competition we have now, don't ISPs have a financial incentive to provide the best connectivity to the largest group of customers?]]
NO. As long as a whopping 8 companies control 90% of ALL MEDIA in this country they are more interested in making a higher barrier to entry. They want to stop startups like netflix from "piggy backing" on the internet connection to provide competitive content.
Don't think it's happening? The same media companies make up the MPAA. Despite it being AGAINST the intent of copyright law, the MPAA has strong armed renter "red box" into delaying rentals because quote "the low price degrades the rental experience". NO JOKE, they believe that if you aren't paying enough then you won't enjoy the content. What does red box have to do with all this? They are doing the same thing with netflix. They delay or make rights to items prohibitively expensive for internet content because they own the monopoly to the cable connection coming into your house.
Hulu is owned by NBC and NBC just got bought by comcast. TONS of conflict of interest.
@dataninja
[[No ISP is even suggesting doing what you're talking about.]]
ARGH.
Comcast stated they weren't going to degrade anyone's performance yet they were CAUGHT throttling P2P traffic that didn't originate and end on their network.
Others have used deep packet inspection to slow FTP,online games, and charged, VoIP that wasn't run by the company.
@everyone does and stabby:
I appreciate your concern, and also want to keep the internet as open as possible (unrestricted, untaxed, etc).
When judging between market competition (such as it is) and federal regulatory agencies, I ask myself the following questions:
1. Is the federal government authorized to handle it?
2. Is forceful compliance required?
3. Which will be most responsive to consumer needs?
And others, but those are a start.
1. Arguably the internet could be viewed as "Interstate Commerce", so perhaps the federal government is authorized to regulate it. An argument can also be made that only a portion of the internet is used for interstate commerce, and other uses (like non-commercial communication) are outside this purview. It's not necessarily a given, but let's assume the answer to 1 is yes.
2. When ISPs defraud, or extort, or abrogate contracts, these are actual crimes of their own accord or civil liability issues. Forceful compliance enforced by government at some level is clearly warranted. This would usually be state law (as most criminal law resides at that level).
When ISPs employ voluntary business practices which are undesirable to some segments of their consumers, forceful compliance is a misuse of the power of government, and I'd reject it.
3. Clearly the answer here is: provider competition is far more effective, responsive, and ethical than federal regulation. When you don't like a practice, you fire the practitioner. They know this, and compete for your business. When competition is limited by government licensing and barriers to entry, the competition model falls down. In these cases, I support removing the barriers to allow for greater competition.
Federal agencies are very slow to respond to consumer requirements (if they respond at all), they consistently use dated, overly simplistic, one-size-fits-all models which are often Byzantine and opaque. The policies enacted by federal agencies often produce unintended consequences which consumers are then stuck with. And finally, regulators are corruptible. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.
All in all, I prefer to move towards market solutions. Maybe dumb pipes or emerging Wifi would help open the field to competitors.
I don't rely on the saintliness of businessmen or legislators; I prefer competition and free markets.
The internet is a series of tubes.
@ECH No, it's a dump-truck!!
NET NEUTRALITY IS GUARANTEEING THINGS STAY THE WAY THEY ARE, FREE AND OPEN, AND THAT NO INDIVIDUAL COMPANY BREAKS THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE INTERNET. NET NEUTRALITY CHANGES NOTHING, IT SIMPLY STOPS OTHERS FROM TRYING TO LIMIT YOUR ACCESS.
Please, everyone here make sure you start NOW in repeating the above. You must tell the layman why they are interested in keeping things neutral.
"Timewarner would like to limit your access or charge more for youtube, hulu, and netflix so that you will be more interested in paying for their cable service."
"That'll never happen?? Comcast has already been caught slowing peoples' traffic if it wasn't only on their network. That's what spurred the lastest effort by the FCC. Comcast was ALREADY trying to give different internet access to their customers vs. DSL vs. TW. Net neutrality lets you pick internet access from anyone and you get THE SAME internet. They want to change that. "
Go google right now. The Republicans in general, are already skewing the entire conversation to make it sound like the FCC is "trying to take over the internet". Please take the time to educate the layman voters in your life. This is one of the most important subjects in our lives and could have implications for the next 50+ years.
@everyone does
now that we know you work for ACCORN what other communist propaganda are you going to spew?
@Mentat
Do you really live your life this way? You link everything to whatever is politically expedient at the moment? That short sighted?
What is about being an authoritarian that is so attractive to you? Do you even think about an issue when you approach it, or just link it to some political cliche that let's you misuse words like 'communism'?
You're either a incomprehensibly pathetic person or one of the best internet trolls I've ever seen.
@Mentat You sound like every other conservative prick who acts like they know it all, do like the smart ones do and keep your trap closed.
@Bshaw1090
Yes, because every "conservative prick" knows that they cannot hope to achieve the glorious level of discourse that you so aptly demonstrate.
/s
Government starting to dabble their filthy little fingers on the internet? Well, according to their track record, the internet will be completely destroyed in a couple of decades. RIP Internet, it was nice while it lasted.
@rosebowl23
I hope you get voted all the way down for being an idiot. DARPA and Publicly funded/created educational institutions is at the foundation of the internet's creation. Without government, no internet as you know it.
You are asking to sink the ship with your own ideological partisan stupidity.
@rosebowl23
ALSO, here, since I'm sick to death of "private companies will fix everything" and "government always screws things up".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Rail_Corporation
It's blind childish mantra. Do you even critically think? Or do you see a situation and just immediately parrot the last sound byte you heard?
@everyone does it was innovation and free markets that allows you to enjoy it and to allow it to innovate.
BTW Al Gore didn't really invent the internet!
@desmo
Yes, innovation due to the Openness of the internet, the low entry to startups, the free expression of ideas and content. On the internet, but service gets the same access to web presence as MSFT, APPL, et al.
The FCC plan to keep things open the way they are now, is not the stupid rhetoric that is being implied above.
And once again, NOTHING you said contradicts the fact of anything I said.
@everyone does
China said the EXACT SAME THING when they took over the internet
They wanted all companies to be treated equally and treat the citizens equally... they dont even have GOOGLE over there.
@Mentat
You can't be serious, right? Just trolling! Amazing trolling and not so stupid? RIGHT?
@everyone does
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with that link to the Conrail history. From the page you link: "Even after the government-funded Amtrak took over intercity passenger service in 1971, railroad companies continued to lose money due to extensive government regulations, competition from other transportation modes, and other factors."
And yet you want the government to regulate the internet more? I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make with that link, but it makes you look a bit silly when you say: "Do you even critically think? Or do you see a situation and just immediately parrot the last sound byte you heard?"
@everyone does
The internet did indeed begin with ARPANET and universities. Without them, the basic proof of concept may not have arisen.
But to credit DARPA and universities with what we now know as the internet would be like crediting the three quarters of a billion motor vehicles in the world today to Karl Benz. Yes, he may have invented the first gasoline automobile, but it's the creative efforts of 125 years of producers and consumer demand that have created the ubiquitous automobile of today.
ARPANET was the beginning, but the all-encompassing communication tool we call the internet today is the result of 1.8 billion humans interacting with each other, forming companies, fulfilling products, offering news, etc, etc.
Almost all of that activity has been voluntary and market driven. That's why it's been so successful.
Government is necessary for protecting rights. Absent force or other criminal activity, deciding how companies should interact with consumers is a job for a market, not a government.
@Abe
Nice Job selecting something out of context and ignoring the article regarding CONSOLIDATED RAIL. Did you just not read it? Look for what you wanted? Or did you read and find the one line that mentioned regulation badly while ignoring the whole intent of the rest?
But hurrr, give EVERYTHING to private companies. They never do anything badly, especially when they have a de facto monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
THE INTERNET WOULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Go move to somalia if you want no government. It'll be a picture of Ayn rand's dreams in no time, right?!
@Akston
CERN invented WWW, more govnerment funding!
Why do you all think that this bill is about changing means of access or the content on the internet? It was comcast and others that threw the first stone. They are the ones that not only hold de facto monopolies in most areas of the country over broadband (I have the choice of cable or dial up where I am ).
You continue to make implications to content, connection type, bandwidth. NONE of that is the topic here. The question is whether we should guarantee that when you buy a DSL connection, a cable connection, etc. that you get the SAME OPEN INTERNET just as you do know (you know, the openness you are championing for its ability to create competition and low barriers to startups).
NO ONE is discussing the forcing of what a package of access TO that content looks like. Just a guarantee that you get equal access. That equal access from ALL PORTS of entry in the entire world (sans corrupt assholes like China, Pakistan, and well....Australia too) is what MUST stay there.
Remember, the telecoms have already started throttling and blocking services! This isn't a hypothetical. This is only a topic because for no reason other than their de facto monopolies in many areas of the country,they can. They are NOT improving anything by throttling and degrading service.
I would have to say that something has to be done. Yes, comcast got caught throttling users, and if I pay for a speed of connection per month, then I should get it without restriction.
And yes, the market is not working in this case due to the high barrier to entry, since the backbone lines are owned by these large companies.
Unfortunately, the companies AND the government have brought this down on the customer. Whether through lax legislation, or lack there of, and massive lobbying efforts by the large providers, the customer has lost choice, and the availability to easily move through the market.
I think the point needs to be about what the customer wants, NOT what companies and the government want for them.
@Blkrain I have no problem with Comcast throttling customers though IF they clearly advertise the fact.
As a extremely high bandwidth user, it doesn't serve my interests, but at my dorm I believe they showed 1% of the students were using 95% of the available bandwidth. To have everyone contribute equally to very unequal consumption isn't exactly fair.
@Ducman69
LOL
[[I believe they showed 1% of the students were using 95% of the available bandwidth. To have everyone contribute equally to very unequal consumption isn't exactly fair.]]
Making sure that when you buy an internet connection (DSL vs cable vs...) that you can still access the same sites and still have the same internet when you stay at a hotel or at home has nothing to do with bandwidth! Google already pays for their bandwidth, so do you, so do I.
NOTHING is stopping the ISP's from capping bandwidth or charging more.
In your fantasy world you want to let the ONE BROADBAND CONNECTION in plenty of cases (cable where I live) have the power to limit start up competitors because they announce it in their fine print. You want to make it so that when I travel, I may not be able to access the same services, because I don't know what every hotspot, hotel, etc. will offer.
It's an incredibly short sighted idea. If ANYONE could offer you cable through the plug in your home, then maybe you would have an argument. But most places only have ONE or maybe two option for broadband access period.
@Ducman69
How do you pay for the connection in the dorm? I, of course, pay for a connection speed (8 Mbps), and I would expect to not have that connection throttled or capped. If you are using a communal resource pool that everyone is drawing from, I can see where you think it is unfair, but I am not (although we could go into how much of the pie is split up from the resource pool of the ISP, but I won't).
I just want what I am paying for, not content filtering, throttling, or capping. If the ISP doesn't want to operate that way, then they need to change the pricing plans, although I would probably move to another ISP that didn't do that.
@everyone does
I agree with you, and I too have a limited option of ISPs in my area, thanks to a city government contract with providers. One more barrier to entry. Oh well!
Congress is getting involved? This will not end well for consumers.
The nuts and bolts of the whole thing: The cost of internet access will be tiered, if this passess. I'm for the law. I will pay for the extra tier, I am not for being limited or capped. May that's why I have DSL vs. Cable.
@APlayaFromtheHimalya
Tiered what? Explain your terms.
Nothing in net neutrality would stop companies from giving out tiers of access. They can sell bandwidth, max speed speed, latency, hot spots. They just can't give you DIFFERENT internet than any other connection.
Hmm, why do I have the feeling this would make things worse instead of better?
@BenD
Because you don't know what net neutrality is or what the FCC's statements thus far have said.
@everyone does
Actually I was thinking that the cable lobbies might get their way and remove the power completely. But you're right there are two ways to look at it.
I just hope they stop these cable companies from throttling peoples Internet service I mean I'm already getting ripped off by paying Almost $100 a month for 16 mbs ( btw I have never experienced 16 mbs from my cable company ever ) and on top of that if I play my ps3 online for a few hours and then try to surf the net I can't because they have slowed my Internet down to almost dial up speed ... And then I call them and they tell me I should slow down my Internet usage so that won't happen is just crazy I pay for 16 mbs and that is what I should get not some half ass service that will get slowed down from time to time because they say I use to much that is just crazy so yea I hope the government does something to stop that kind of practice
@ihve2cuties
Hey, just read the thread! Why don't you just go to a different cable company?! You know...the other one that almost no one has a choice of because it doesn't exist! Who needs government regulation when you have a monopoly?
I find it amazing how "everyone does" is promoting the wonders of big government and then trying to say ISP monopolies is proof that we need government intervention when... government contracts... are what give these ISPs... monopolies... to... begin... with...
@rosebowl23
You need a source for your fallacy. It's government regulation that forced the bells to break up and then allow others to ride on the backbones in the ground.
Without government regulation, you would have Bell doing ALL DSL and one or two cable companies doing 99% of cable broadband. Why on god's earth are you a monopoly apologist??? MONOPOLIES BREAK THE FREE MARKET.
And espousing big government? NO. Stop the hyperbole. I'm not the silly ideologue here that responds like a Pavlovian dog to the mere idea that government exists for a reason.
I only hope all lawmakers and regulating bodies around the world
would be very conscious that Communication (all forms), just like
water or electricity is a Public Utility, and should not be made a
profit oriented business venture. At least not too much. Regulation
is very important but not to a point of making it too difficult or
expensive to communicate.
My basic opinion.
@dmax
No one should care if they make a profit.
Just that
- there is competition such that a market will work (there isn't and can't physically be at the moment, despite the number of monopoly apologists in this thread)
- all internet access gets the SAME internet content, since these companies enjoy a privileged monopoly in so many areas.
SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY. That's all that needs to be done. Connections types? packages? whatever...Those are the fees that roll out new access. But degrading and censoring content when in a privileged position? Tough shit telcos....you messed up by abusing it.
Just how much "competition" is there, really? Where I live, most areas only have access to one broadband provider. I have yet to see an area with more than one cable provider and most people live too far from the city for DSL access. I get 6Mb for the same price that other people pay for much more bandwith through RoadRunner.
Oh please. Engadget is my preferred site for stuff that isn't political. I can read and participate in discussions without any far-right or far-left I'm-always-right-and-and-you-are-always-wrong bullcrap. I have my opinions too, but have you seen the drivel that people post of Fox News, CNN, or Huffington Post? YUCK! Let's keep Engadget above that.
In my opinion, a revamp of telecom law is fine as long as the lobbyists don't get to write the law. They might start out with good intentions, but when Comcast and Verizon start writing checks the new law might end up worse than the old one.
Ah, good the senate's gonna lay out the law. It's not like most of them were born in 1934 and have a pitiful understanding of technology or anything...