FCC Moves Toward Net Neutrality Rules

[onehandle]

Source: Yahoo News

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission, in taking the first step toward creating net neutrality rules earlier this year, has reignited a contentious debate about government regulation of the Internet. Opponents of new net neutrality rules argue that an FCC proposal released in October would create intrusive new rules for the Internet and would mark a major shift in the U.S. government's generally hands-off approach to Web regulation. The FCC's proposed net neutrality rules would, among other things, require Internet service providers to "treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner."

New rules aren't needed, because there have been few examples of broadband providers blocking or slowing Web content and applications, critics said. "Where's the beef?" Barbara Esbin, a senior fellow with the free-market think tank Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), wrote in a paper published this month. "There is little or no evidence that broadband ISPs are plotting to alter the fundamental attributes of the Internet in such nefarious ways or of actual consumer harms from today's broadband network management practices." The PFF and other critics say net neutrality rules will hamper broadband providers' investment in their networks, by creating rules on how they can use those investments. The net neutrality rules could prohibit innovative, new business models focused on tiered pricing or specialized networks, critics have said.

Backers of net neutrality rules say the FCC's proposal would simply reinstate old rules, relaxed by the FCC in 2005, that required traditional telecom carriers to share their networks. Rules are needed because there have already been examples of ISPs blocking or slowing Web content, they say, including Comcast's attempts in 2007 and 2008 to slow BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic in the name of fighting network congestion. "Please keep the Internet business neutral, I am tired of hearing A&T and other businesses saying they are being hurt by net neutrality," Internet user Hawk Bailey of New Baltimore, Michigan, wrote in comments filed with the FCC. "Instead, they want to earn extra money and power by allowing companies to pay for priority access and requiring individuals and small businesses to do the same to compete."

The debate over whether the FCC or U.S. Congress should create net neutrality rules has been simmering in Washington, D.C., for the better part of the decade. In 2005, the FCC ended requirements that traditional telecom carriers share their networks with competitors, and net neutrality advocates renewed their arguments that net neutrality rules were needed to protect consumers in a broadband market without many competitors. But Democrats in Congress were unable to push through a net neutrality law, and the Republican-controlled FCC was unwilling to act. But President Barack Obama said during 2008's presidential campaign that net neutrality rules were one of his top tech priorities, and Obama-appointed FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski pushed forward with a net neutrality rulemaking proceeding this year.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20091230/tc_pcworld/fccmovestowardnetneutralityrules_1

[bemildred]

1. The net belongs to everyone equally.

If the infrastructure providers don't like it, we can publicize the business so we don't have to listen to their whining all the time.

[vinylsolution]

2. This can't come soon enough....

The web belongs to all of us.

[KansDem]

3. "...reignited a contentious debate about government regulation of the Internet."

I'm not worried so much about government regulation of the Internet as I am corporate regulation. Once corporatists get their slimy tentacles wrapped around the "tubes," we'll soon return to pre-Internet "information sources" as FOXNews and their ilk.

The only thing that stands between America and the fascists is the Internet...

[clear eye]

5. "The only thing that stands between America and the fascists is the Internet..."

Indeed.

[PATRICK]

4. Future computers

well on the way will have the storage capacity of becoming their own servers and internet gateways supposedly eliminating much of the need for other providers like Time Warner etc. So this concern for controlling the internet again translates to reining in the individual freedoms or power of the individual. Clinton was big on getting the government mitts on the Web and with friends like this who needs DARPA to make the first initiatives to put the usual suspects in charge of the last recourse of human freedom at least as regards global communication, joint human efforts, advocacy... Well the list gets frighteningly big for a still unaccountable Big Brother government.

The race for Comcast or TW to "meter" usage also is a race against progress when they will become as irrelevant as a power company if every home has self-sufficient "alternate" energy. One way of course is to keep the new computers as unnaffordable as possible and the shrinking middle class too cash strapped to jump at the truly liberating technology.

[Edweird]

6. Finally some good news.

[DCKit]

7. If they're not manipulating the DL speeds, they aren't in control of their own systems.

I've been disconnected from the Internet about twenty times and ramped back to 1/2 and 1/3 speed off and on since this morning. The contract says 7Mbps, so I don't see how they can justify not providing that speed 24/7.

Just write (then enforce) the rules already.