The Net Neutrality Coup

[depittydawg]

The internet may be free where you live but I have to pay $40. month for it!

If the FCC wins the right to govern the internet within our boarders, you can bet you'll be paying more. Never in history has our huge Federal Government ever controlled anything and made it better for tax payers financially!!!

That's not the issue. You have to pay. But right now, once you are online, you can access any site you want to. Net Neutrality is an attempt to maintain this freedom.

[depittydawg]

The FCC (at least at this point) is arguing that no one controls the internet. They aren't making a power grab that are saying companies can't limit access to those paying customers. Comcast has shutdown internet to some people current on their payments because it was deemed they were using more than their fair share even though there is nothing in the contract stating comcast will limit bandwidth based on customer following the law.

This ruling is an attempt to maintain the current freedoms on the internet. Not restrict them.
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a buzzword used to describe a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the Internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

At the present time, there is no actual law in the United States that enforces net neutrality, but an informal arrangement has been in place for many years. Net neutrality essentially levels the playing field for commercial websites, ensuring that a small online bookstore can still receive visitors, even if sites such as Amazon.com or Barnes&Noble.com are statistically more popular. Under the philosophy of net neutrality, individual Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines and major online services like Yahoo, America Online (AOL) or Google cannot restrict or filter a user's access to rival companies. AOL, for example, cannot prevent one of its subscribers from receiving email from Yahoo accounts.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-net-neutrality.htm

The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.

Before a vote set for Tuesday, two Democratic commissioners said Monday that they would back the rules proposed by the F.C.C. chairman, Julius Genachowski, which try to satisfy both sides in the protracted debate over so-called network neutrality. But analysts said the debate would soon resume in the courts, as challenges to the rules are expected in the months to come.

Net neutrality, broadly speaking, is an effort to ensure equal access to Web sites and cutting-edge online services. Mr. Genachowski said these proposed rules aimed to both encourage Internet innovation and protect consumers from abuses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/bu...dia/21fcc.html

[Franco]

The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.

If you want to see the internet become a political football, just turn it over to the FCC!

I've worked in an industry regulated by the FCC for 36 years. I am well aware how good they are at ------- things up. The internet has worked well because of free enterprise. The better mouse trap will always win when it provides a better product. Right now the consumer has choices. The first time anyone of the big providers starts a lobby to deal with the Feds, the Feds will limit your choices under the guise of protecting the consumers and the financial health of the provider. The Telecom Deregulation Act of 1996 in a very clear example of how the FCC has limited choices in an attempt to financially protect and industry. Consumers didn't benefit from the Act but, it did artificially protect broadcast, satellite and communications companies to the detrement of the public!

If the FCC is allowed to get its claws into it, they'll do what any government agency does, make it more restricted and more costly.

I'm off to my goose pit. With the fog it should be a good morning for geese!

[BrianW]

First I would say look at this from strictly a legal standpoint:
The Obama Admin, through the FCC and as it has demonstrated before, is ignoring the rule of law and is taking authority not granted unto itself. Imo, that ought to scare the hell out of anybody, no matter which side of "net neutrality" you're on.
From the ruling:
Comcast vs FCC http://www.scribd.com/doc/29489974/F...l-Court-Ruling
"In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider’s network management practices. Acknowledging that it has no express statutory authority over such practices, the Commission relies on section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, which authorizes the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in theexecution of its functions.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). The Commission may exercise this “ancillary” authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers’ use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is “reasonably ancillary to the . . . effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.”Am Library Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
The Commission has failed to make that showing. It relies principally on several Congressional statements of policy, but under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create “statutorily mandated responsibilitiers.” The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast’s network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast’s petitionfor review and vacate the challenged order."
And as pointed out by Eric , there has been no appeal of this ruling yet.
So the FCC has effectively said "Screw the court system" hasn't it?

Yes because ISP's telling people where they can and can't go is SOOO much better than the FCC saying they aren't allowed to do that.

Next, aren't ISP's as private business entities providing a service which you are free in your choice to utilize or not? If you don't like the service that one provides like Comcast, do business with another one like Verizon, or AOL etc or go to Hughesnet for satellite. Let the market and the consumer decide, not an appropriation of power from gov.org!

Lastly, once the gov assumes the authority to state what a private business MUST provide, it assumes the corollary authority to dictate what it CAN'T provide, and that's where the danger really begins in my view.
The liberals, progressives and, yes, the MOTR's too, should be terrified of a "Bush/Cheney on steroids" in a succeeding administration getting a hold of this type of power!

[Cody Covey]

That's not how ISP's work. There isn't a true choice. ISP's control areas and you don't have a real choice in who you get for internet. Most ISP's take government funds to fund their multi-million/billion infrastructure expansions.

[Franco]

I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

If I don't like what one ISP is doing, I can always switch to another!

[YardleyLabs]

I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

If I don't like what one ISP is doing, I can always switch to another!

You actually have access to many fewer ISP's than you think. I provide ISP services (web site hosting). However, all of my traffic goes through Qwest and Verizon. If Qwest or Verizon begin limiting access to preferred sources, that will affect all of my traffic as well.

While the communication companies have sought to define the issue in terms of managing scarce network resources, the reality is that their objective is to limit traffic in ways that will increase demand for their own content. That produces much higher margins than commodity bandwidth. They have already succeeded in driving all smaller vendors out of the bandwidth business, primarily through their control of residential connections that were established under the auspices of governmentally granted franchises and easements.

[BrianW]

That's not how ISP's work. There isn't a true choice. ISP's control areas and you don't have a real choice in who you get for internet. Most ISP's take government funds to fund their multi-million/billion infrastructure expansions.

I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

As up here, even in the "backwoods". Through cable provider, phone company, wireless through cell provider(s), at least 3 sat services.
That's not a "real choice"?

I'm reasonably sure the appeals court heard the "ISP's/gov funding" argument during the case, but they still ruled the FCC doesn't have the statutory authority. Regardless of the "good intents/efforts" or "principles/concepts", until that ruling is vacated, where is "the mandate" for this action, if not from just arrogance on the part of this Obama appointee?

[depittydawg]

You actually have access to many fewer ISP's than you think. I provide ISP services (web site hosting). However, all of my traffic goes through Qwest and Verizon. If Qwest or Verizon begin limiting access to preferred sources, that will affect all of my traffic as well.

While the communication companies have sought to define the issue in terms of managing scarce network resources, the reality is that their objective is to limit traffic in ways that will increase demand for their own content. That produces much higher margins than commodity bandwidth. They have already succeeded in driving all smaller vendors out of the bandwidth business, primarily through their control of residential connections that were established under the auspices of governmentally granted franchises and easements.

So given this assessment, which seems to coincide with the arguments I posted earlier, how does the FCC ruling impact the consumer? Provider?

[Cody Covey]

I have access to at least half a dozen ISP's at home including one that is Fiber Optic.

If I don't like what one ISP is doing, I can always switch to another!

As Jeff stated you have access to half a dozen resold ISP's most likely ALL coming off the one fiber trunk into town. The only real time you have access to different providers is when you have some sattelite in the area and when you know the latency that sattelite has it really isn't an option. You pay twice as much for the same speed service as low rated DSL but after you factor in both latency from the sattelite as well as the wireless tower pumping it to you you are getting about 1/3rd of the rated speed. Not to mention most sattelite customers are all on the same backhaul if there are many people on line its even less then the 1/3rd stated.