FCC moves forward on net neutrality rule-making in unanimous vote

With a unanimous vote to move forward on a rule-making process for how the federal government will police access to the Internet, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski won a victory on his first major policy issue at the agency.

The chairman, picked by President Obama, said, "The heart of the problem is that, taken together, we face a dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open Internet."

Republican Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Attwell Baker voted in favor of the proposal but said they dissented on "facts" of the proposal. They said their votes are for the beginning of a data-gathering process, which should last at least 120 days. They did not say whether they will vote in favor of ultimate rules and have disagreed that the Internet appears to need more regulation.

"Today we do disagree on substance. I do not agree with the majority’s view that the Internet is showing breaks and cracks and that the government ... needs to fix it," McDowell said. "Nonetheless it is important to remember that the commission is starting a process, not ending one."

He also said that in considering such rules, the FCC needs to weigh whether the policy should apply to a broader array of companies that feed into the Web, instead of just access providers like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Sprint Nextel. The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over the Internet but is the watchdog agency over communications companies that allow consumers and business to get onto the Web -- the so-called onramps to the Internet.

When asked about his views on expanding regulation to include Web content firms like Google, Amazon, and Skype, Genachowski said the agency should be cautious.

"This whole proceeding has always been about Internet access providers," Genachowski said in a press briefing after the meeting. "We should be cautious before tackling issues of onramp providers to the Internet itself."

"The government's role in preserving openness is important but also modest," Genachowski said during remarks at the meeting. "I have to be clear that government is should not be in the business of running or regulating the Internet."

The most contentious details will be on precise definitions for how carriers can "reasonably" manage traffic on their networks. There will also be much debate on what managed services, such as telemedicine and some video applications, should fall under final rules.

Genachowski said the rules would apply across all platforms of broadband access, including mobile Internet -- and that the agency will consider technical questions take into account the concerns by wireless providers. Wireless companies say their networks have capacity issues not felt by fixed-line broadband providers like cable and fiber operators.

By Cecilia Kang | October 22, 2009; 11:35 AM ET
Share This: E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: FCC Republicans McDowell, Baker agree to explore net neutrality rules

There is nothing these demokrats will avoid regulating it seems. It is a worldwide network, what right do these demokrats have to regulate it?

The convenient quote "We should be cautious before tackling issues of onramp providers to the Internet itself" is only a way of saying "this is the first step, and we'll attack the content providers themselves in due time."

Well..the fact is the internet is now the country's life blood for commerce...communication..and just about everything else. It is in our national security to ensure it's saftey and well being. It is too big..too important to just leave it as the will, wild west.


Then again perhaps the federal govt feels the need to track IP addresses juat like some on here fell they have the right to do without advising anyone...and who knows what else.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well..the fact is the internet is now the
> country's life blood for
> commerce...communication..and just about
> everything else. It is in our national security
> to ensure it's saftey and well being. It is too
> big..too important to just leave it as the will,
> wild west.
>

If you even understood half the issues that "net neutrality" is actually attempting to NOT regulate by regulating it, I would be amazed. As usual though, you were able to plug in the soundbite description of "wild wild west". Net neutrality is not good for commerce btw Vince.

>
> Then again perhaps the federal govt feels the need
> to track IP addresses juat like some on here fell
> they have the right to do without advising
> anyone...and who knows what else.

They already do Vince.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then again perhaps the federal govt feels the need
> to track IP addresses juat like some on here fell
> they have the right to do without advising
> anyone...and who knows what else.

They already do, retard.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing these demokrats will avoid
> regulating it seems. It is a worldwide network,
> what right do these demokrats have to regulate it?


Net-neutrality prevents your ISP from blocking, censoring, or slowing your internet connection.

Explain to me how this is a bad thing?

You'd like to live in a place where your ISP slows all Google searches down because they've signed an exclusive deal with Yahoo? That's the kind of thing net-neutrality is preventing.

It's only bad for commerce if you're a giant ISP that has a virtual monopoly over a market.

The concern is that the infrastructure in place will not support open, unlimited bandwidth which all consumers want. So the ISPs limit certain channels and types of connections (P2P file sharing traffic for instance) to ensure that other "more worthy" traffic can continue. Where the real problem comes in, is content providers pushing for more and more avenues to push new services onto the internet, and sucking up serious amounts of bandwidth (on demand video for instance) without having to pay larger fees for their bandwidth use. The problem comes down to who should pay, the content provider (like Hulu for instance) or the consumer. And where does the ISP fit in when they don't have the bandwidth, or cannot afford additional bandwidth to make that happen.

Someone has to pay for the infrastructure - so either they raise costs on consumers (not good for promoting cheap internet for all - see housing and how that issue worked out), or they allow for some content providers to pay a premium for access, or some consumers to pay a premium for exclusive access.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I was nervous that with all the ads I've been hearing on the radio that net neutrality may be overturned it would be the worst thing that could happen to the internet if telcomms could decide how we are to see things on the net.

I'm glad that the FCC got something right.

As for Registered Voters concerns about costs I agree with you, it is very expensive and I think it should be taken out of telcomm's hands in general and turned over to the public. The government should work to install broadband communications throughout the country just as it did to install interstate highways in the 60's. The internet is a vital resource and I don't think it should be controlled by telcomms. Everyone should have access to cheap broadband and it will not happen as long as the telcomms control it. Our broadband in the US is terribly slow even my fios connection whilst much, much better than cable or DSL is still quite subpar compared to my compatriorts in other countries, plus they pay much less than I do per month.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with ISP's having a tiered pricing structure based on bandwidth consumption. If you're downloading 100 gigabytes of movies a month, they should be able to charge you more for the extra bandwidth you're using.

But I completely disagree with the proposition that they should be allowed to arbitrarily slow or censor your connection based on the content or software you are using. Something like this could really hinder innovation.

Example: P2P has the potential to serve more than just sharing music files. Developers might have some excellent ideas in the works for using P2P to do something revolutionary, or to open new markets.

That would really be hindered if ISP's were allowed to slow or block P2P connections.

Yeah, I was thinking that as I wrote my comments. If they were committed to this issue then they would do that. Although then it would open up all the big brother concerns.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince,
   i tell you the truth when i say your analogies are invalid and concerns misplaced. it's apparent that this isnt a topic you fully understand. i'm not saying you should be excluded but in everyone's best interest if you learn more about it before commenting further.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our broadband in the US is terribly slow even my
> fios connection whilst much, much better than
> cable or DSL is still quite subpar compared to my
> compatriorts in other countries, plus they pay
> much less than I do per month.

Your comparison to DSL is valid, but FIOS internet is certainly not "much, much better" than cable. In fact, they both offer the exact same internet speed options.

Speed options may be the same, but FiOS is leagues ahead of cable. If you had been around when Code Red hit, and your neighborhood hub was overwhelmed by the massive broadcast traffic being generated by your neighbors you would surely understand the difference.

EDIT: When Code Red was out, DSL was about the only sane way to get high speed internet at the time, and dial-up even beat out cable speeds once your neighbors turned their computers on (assuming they didn't leave them on all day).

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2009 11:28PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speed options may be the same, but FiOS is leagues
> ahead of cable. If you had been around when Code
> Red hit, and your neighborhood hub was overwhelmed
> by the massive broadcast traffic being generated
> by your neighbors you would surely understand the
> difference.
>
> EDIT: When Code Red was out, DSL was about the
> only sane way to get high speed internet at the
> time, and dial-up even beat out cable speeds once
> your neighbors turned their computers on (assuming
> they didn't leave them on all day).

You're using an 8-year old worm to make your case for FIOS? If someone looks hard enough, they'll find reasons to prefer one over the other. For the average John Q. Public, the differences are not that spectacular. I'm not saying it isn't a little better overall, newer technology and all, but to say "much, much better" is simply bullshit.

No - I am pointing out the problem an 8 year old worm caused to cable. Cable is implemented in a hub at the neighborhood level, with all users sharing the local bandwidth before it ever makes it to the switching points. FiOS is switch based, meaning all residents are already in switched circuits all the way to the backbone providers. Believe me, switch based technology makes a huge difference in the actual bandwidth you realize from your home.

EDIT: I worked with the Road Runner engineers when they were first implementing Linux boxes to perform some of their management functions in the local area (before folks like LinkSys came out with routers for your home networks). When COX bought out Media General Cable and the local Road Runner setup, they made some upgrades, but you are still getting hub based local service. And yes, believe me, it is inferior to what FiOS has implemented.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2009 11:40PM by Registered Voter.

I'ma ll for net neutrality as long as democrats control the speed dial!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

I will agree that FIOS consists of better technology, and that the potential for internet slow-downs is greater on cable. I know cable's performance is affected by the number of users on the local neighborhood hub. Maybe I'm kucky enough to be on a sparsely populated hub. All I know is that my internet service on cable has been rock solid, consistent, and my neighbor who has FIOS TV/internet does not enjoy any better performance than I do.

-,SBS,- Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will agree that FIOS consists of better
> technology, and that the potential for internet
> slow-downs is greater on cable. I know cable's
> performance is affected by the number of users on
> the local neighborhood hub. Maybe I'm kucky
> enough to be on a sparsely populated hub. All I
> know is that my internet service on cable has been
> rock solid, consistent, and my neighbor who has
> FIOS TV/internet does not enjoy any better
> performance than I do.

that good news for you but i want my internet to be faster, dammit.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Is internet neutralitry covered under the Geneva Conventions? If they are you can forget republikans ever foloowing the rules of engagement. Perhaps we need a non-combatant internet.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is internet neutralitry covered under the Geneva
> Conventions?

LOL!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Hey..the internet could/should be like Switzerland....neutral!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

this fucking shit is dumb







Content edited by the FCC

"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material."

Courtesy of Ted Stevens, on why the Internet needs to be regulated.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Here's what the future of the internet might look like without net-neutrality.

I like this one better :)

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like this one better :)



I liked the Blogger Internet Service package on mine. "Be a publisher! Blog!"

These graphics are sorta scary actually.

Where's the porn category?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

yay nut nuetrality! come here big boy