FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access

[The Northerner]

Source: Washington Post

The Federal Communications Commission is considering aggressive moves to stake out its authority to oversee consumer access to the Internet, as a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers.

The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.

"This is a pivotal moment," said Ben Scott, director of policy at the public interest group Free Press. The government wants to treat broadband Internet as a national infrastructure, he said, like phone lines or the broadcast spectrum. But federal regulators are grappling with older policies that do not clearly protect consumers' access to the Web, their privacy or prices of service.

The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC's authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers' access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011404717_pf.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Because everyone in the LAND OF THE FREE has to be under complete control at all times

Wake up, America!

[Xipe Totec]

4. Tell me how unshackling Comcast is a good move?

:wtf:

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Ah, that's what I get for responding too quickly

My first thought was that they wanted more control over OUR access to the internet.

[proudohioan]

8. I did too.

[LiberalFighter]

2. I would think that currently the FCC does not have jurisdiction.

I'm not sure that I would ever want them to as they may be worse then Comcast.

[Enthusiast]

14. In this instance Comcast is worse. nt

[FLAprogressive]

3. is this good or bad?

[NJmaverick]

12. Comcast wants to block bit torrant so it can sell you their pay per view movies

the FCC is trying to prevent that and is trying to force Comcast to not limit access to the internet.

[NashVegas]

20. Actors, Camera Crew, etc Do Not Work For Tip Jar Donations

I used to be solidly in the corner of the downloaders when the issue was about good music that wasn't getting heard.

That's no longer the case.

This is now about a bunch of whining cube rats who think they're somehow entitled to determine how and if artists can make a living.

[No Elephants]

32. Meh. I think Comcast is relevant mostly to the owners of the movie and maybe the headliners.

I don't think actors with small parts and certainly not the camera crews are paid with an eye to PPV receipts.

[Kurska]

35. Or, you know the age of massive companies building walls around our collective culture is over.

Industry shouldn't expect technology to adapt to their business models, their business models need to adapt to technology. If only because this isn't a war copyright police could ever win, our ability to share massive amounts of data is just getting faster and faster.

Did you know in a few years people won't even need torrent trackers? The old trackers will just exist totally as peer to peer magnet links with zero infrastructure outside of a collective linked group that can die or be resurrected at any time if only ONE person has a complete copy of the file. GOOD LUCK, trying to police that.

I love the Movies, I love the people that make them, but the fact is you can't expect the entire world to cling to outdated business models that just don't make sense anymore. The Industry will adapt, people will continue to make movies, but it will end up looking totally different then it does now.

[boppers]

25. *bittorrent

Some back story: Comcast was sending RST (reset) bits to file swappers who were using much more than normal bandwidth. Pretty standard practice for nodes that are behaving erratically, or overloading the network.

That being said, Comcast can't limit internet access, they can only limit traffic on their own networks... much like they can already legally limit what cable channels they show. Comcast doesn't "control" the internet, nobody does, which is why it managed to avoid the pitfalls of every other form of controlled media.

[MicaelS]

6. I support the FCC, this is about Net Neutrality, not Censorship.

The FCC is trying to make sure the public has equal access to all website. To stop the ISPs from not throttling certain content, like P2P, or show preferential treatment to some websites (the ones they own). The FCC under President Obama is FINALLY trying to do its job of protecting the consumer by putting restrictions on Big Business, something Bush would not let them do.

[mac56]

10. +1

:thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

15. +1 ! Support net neutrality!

Why not protect the consumer for a change.

[boppers]

26. Net Neutrality (as proposed) is great for spammers and crackers.

All traffic that's not illegal would be treated equally... so, ISP's couldn't limit spam, phishing, DDoS, etc., because ISP's would be caught in a bind trying to determine what was, and wasn't "legal".

Good idea, bad execution.

[Occulus]

34. Net neutrality is what keeps DU usable and online gaming viable.

It also allows people to perform large system updates at a high data transfer rate, download entire DVD .iso files of operating systems like Ubuntu, chat on a webcam, and on and on.

Without net neutrality, the internet would be crippled.

[liberal N proud]

7. The only driver here is GREED

What they control can be purchased. The power the wield than can be purchased to allow control by a privileged group.

[peacetalksforall]

9. I think the WP writer did a poor job of writing . Very confusing. It assumes

prior knowledge of the status of the push and pull game being played by those who want control.

[ectoendomezo]

11. WHY regulate gutless ISP's? Instead..Regulate GOOGLE Home Invasion Helper!

Why are ISP'S such Pushovers?

I ask you this question because..well..I cannot recall..the last time I heard..or..wait..you know what? I don't recall EVER hearing of an ISP 'REFUSING' to essentially..'OBEY' the Ham fisted Coercion of ANY Federal of 'Law Enforcement' bureaucracy..

Hey! I..I'm "SURE" it HAS happened...Must have! Surely Someone had the Cojones to Step Up to a "National Security Letter" or some other Patriot Act/Fusion Center/nonsense!

But..my 'Point' is..Since WHEN does it even MATTER what kind of "Authority" the FCC has "over" the internet? I've never seen it even IMPLIED that the Federal Government was even remotely "Checked" in their ability to do..Whatever they PLEASE to the "World Wide Web"!

And also..HOW..does one.."Government"..exercise "Authority" over something that..excepting the "4th Reich" Aka..CHINA..has NO 'Borders'? How?

Sure..I know how...I do..BUT..again..the 'Point' is..WHAT.."WHAT" kind of "Authority" are they looking to obtain that they..do not have already?

I ask you also..WHERE..have all the HACKERS gone? We NEED them now..to build..and disperse..."COUNTER MEASURES" for We The People to use...to Combat...this Ever Increasing Nightmare of Corporate use of our PERSONAL DATA..and even our actual PROPERTY and HOMES..to create "Content"!

Perhaps if THAT were an FCC issue...well..THAT kind of issue I WOULD support...being a Standing VICTIM of "Google Home Invasion Helper 2.0" or "Google-Presto Cyber Stalker 2.0"...

Perhaps..if the FCC..were to be able to REGULATE just exactly "WHAT"..constituted.."CONTENT"..and they did so with the CITIZEN..as opposed to the "Typo-Citizen" aka the Corporate Citizen...well..THAT COULD BE...AWESOME!

For example...that GOOGLE...can even PRETEND..unabashedly...that "Content" is NOT a "PRODUCT"..IF..'THEY DON'T ADVERTISE ON THAT PAGE' etc..Well..THAT Dog Don't HUNT!

Do you REALLY think that GOOGLE does NOT..Pitch the "Numbers" regarding "TRAFFIC" generated by "Google Streets" Aka "Google Home Invasion Helper 2.0" AT THEIR SHAREHOLDER MEETINGS? Of COURSE they do..because "TRAFFIC" IS..THE "PRODUCT"! If MY HOUSE..is featured on a page..that anyone can now stare at..and its no longer 'Loitering'..because they are not standing in front of my home..only WATCHING it on their computer..and if the EXCUSE for that is that they are not ADVERTISING...well..then is there a Prohibition for users of Google Streets to..just..go to another Google PAGE..that DOES carry advertising? I refuse to USE google if at all possible..so..I am unsure of this..but i would be very surprised to find the answer to be: "Oh..no! You cannot go to another google page from Google Streets!" ((or earth or whatever is called))...Thus..they ARE..generating TRAFFIC using..MY PROPERTY..to Generate TRAFFIC which Generates AD revenues DESPITE the fact that the advertising being SOLD is not going to appear on a SPECIFIC PAGE...Through Traffic..as it were!

In fact..I can't WAIT..to participate in the Class Action lawsuit that HOPEFULLY..sadly..may come to pass regarding Google Cyber Stalker..when someone IS killed..or Robbed Or RAPED..and it turns out..that the "Perp" USED GOOGLE to CLOSELY STUDY the House they had TARGETED...I mean in MY CASE..you can CLEARLY..as in unmistakebly..see SEVERAL open windows..you can see the TREE'S the Shadows..the FENCE..you can see..in other words..a 3-D image..that was taken..WITHOUT WARNING..WITHOUT CONSENT..and in a..just..UNEQUIVOCALLY.."SNEAKY" Manner!

I mean..HEY! If..IF..a Person STANDS on the "Sidewalk" in FRONT of my house..Taking notes..or just staring..looking at a MINIMUM of Three angles..well..guess what GOOGLE?..THAT..is called.."LOITERING" and it IS NOT..acceptable..I COULD call the cops.I could at LEAST get a look at the individual SO.."Interested" in where every open window is and every hedge and every bush etc! But waht GOOGLE provides is a Cyber Stalking 'TOOL'..Do you REALLY..actually..believe that DENIS RADER..the BTK Killer..would have NOT..utilized "Google Home Invasion Helper/Cyber Stalker" to SCOPE out the House of an intended VICTIM? Really? He absolutely would have..Oh..yeah..the "Address is redacted"..uhh..'Argument'..yeah..SURE it is..in fact..using the Google Home Invasion Helper to FIND an address..is POINTLESS...it is becoming a COMMON..actually..HUGE reality that MILLIONS of "Addresses" are in fact..UTTERLY Incorrect..in fact..the "Address" given for MY house..is WRONG..they got the whole BLOCK backwards! Wow! But the fact is..that the actual IMAGES of homes...are EASIER TO USE FOR A CRIMINAL..THAN FOR A LEGITMATE PURPOSE..BECAUSE IF YOU KNOW THE ADDRESS..WHICH MOST WITH BAD INTENTIONS DO...THEN ALL YOU NEED...IS THE..'OTHER' INFO..WINDOWS..BUSHES..SHADOWS...FENCES..DOGS..ALL PICTURED..ALL INDICATED..IN NICE DIGITAL CLARITY...THE "ADDRESS" IS OF LITTLE CONCERN..IT IS EASIER TO FIND A HOME BY ITS APPEARANCE..AND..THANKS TO GOOGLE'S..UTTERLY POINTLESS "NOT A PRODUCT-PRODUCT" THE CRIMINAL CAN NOW..'CASE THE JOINT' WITH EVEN LESS "EXPOSURE'..MAKING IT JUST...THAT MUCH EASIER TO DECIDE.."SHOULD I OR SHOULDN'T I?"..THANKS GOOGLE..WAY TO GO!

Google is an out of control giant..and if the FCC wants to REGULATE these swine..and others..FINE BY ME! Sadly..it will almost CERTAINLY end up being a "Closed Door Meeting"..followed by even MORE of the END users privacy being ELIMINATED!

And..now with the PUSH..to essentially..PRIVATIZE our MEDICAL RECORDS..well...skies the limit..AND..if you really think your records will be 'Safe' with Google..or Gawd Ferbid Microsft..well..WHY are they SO..DETERMINED..as in spending BIG MONEY to make SURE..that the "HIPPA" rules for Medical Records Privacy..are NOT A "REQUIREMENT" for THEM? WHY? HIPPA WORKS! VERY WELL IN FACT!

GOOGLE is PUBLICLY HELD..Anything they do...they do FOR PROFIT! How come so many forget that?

[bitchkitty]

13. I just read the article

and nowhere does it even mention Google. Google is not an ISP.

[jberryhill]

16. Does your day job include writing ransom notes? /nt

[14thColony]

28. Now THAT is funny! (nt)

[groundloop]

17. HUH???? (....Regulate GOOGLE Home Invasion Helper! )

Net Neutrality, as alluded to in the original post, is a very important topic (and as someone else pointed out the cited article does a poor job of explaining it). Comcast and other ISP's have played around with throttling internet connections, and if given the chance would give preferential treatment to the highest bidder. The FCC has been taking comments on this, if it's not too late anyone who's interested should file a comment with them (I did). In the meantime it sounds like Comcast is trying to do an end-run around the FCC, let's hope that doesn't work.

[boppers]

27. Streetview takes pictures from public property.

Perfectly legal. Takes less than a second. It's also something a stalker has been able to do for the last 50 years.

Maybe you should demand cameras be outlawed.

[paulsby]

31. you have NO idea what you are talking about

"I mean..HEY! If..IF..a Person STANDS on the "Sidewalk" in FRONT of my house..Taking notes..or just staring..looking at a MINIMUM of Three angles..well..guess what GOOGLE?..THAT..is called.."LOITERING" and it IS NOT..acceptable..I COULD call the cops.I could at LEAST get a look at the individual SO..""

it is not going to get them arrested, or even detained if the cop has ANY knowledge of criminal/constitutional law.

standing on a public sidewalk in front of a house is perfectly legal, and unless they stand there for a LONG time, it does not even justify a "terry stop"

heck, unless you have a locked gate, or very adequate signage, they are entirely within their rights to go up and knock on your door.

they can also take all the pictures they want.

that's the way it works in the real world. where we have a constitution, and freedom to move about and the plain view doctrine.

many overbroad loitering statutes have been struck down as unconstitutional and rightly so. nothing you described would be criminal.

fwiw, our dispatch gets calls like that sometimes. a person in a toney white neighborhood will call a "suspicious" person report because some black guy walked by their house twice on the sidewalk and stopped and stared or something stupid like that. needless to say we do not stop that person if we see them. it's a blatant constitutional violation

[dreamnightwind]

18. Excellent

This is good news. I'm a big critic of the Obama - DLC administration. Too similar to Repub policies, though the similarities are more about corporate interest than about left/right issues.

This article, IMHO, shows how there are indeed some differences between Dems and Repubs. Not nearly enough, but some. A Repub admin would not be trying to give the FCC authority to regulate public access to the web, a Dem admin apparently is doing just that.

So, giving credit where credit appears to be due. Let's hope for more examples of Democratic policy from this administration.

[MicaelS]

19. Sorry to say that you are wrong.

This is about Net Neutrality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4226987&mesg_id=4227009

[dreamnightwind]

21. Did you misunderstand my post?

I don't see where I am wrong, are you making some fine distinction between my phrase "regulate public access to the web" and Net Neutrality? If so, whatever, perhaps I chose the wrong words, I stand by my post though and the link you provided also indicates that this is about making sure the public has equal access to bandwidth (net neutrality) rather than allowing corporations to throttle certain protocols or to favor their own sites. Geez, "sorry to say that you are wrong"? Whaddahell?

[Iowa]

23. You're right, but only IF they follow through and get something accomplished...

Generally the Obama administration is either coy/silent on an issue, or they stake out a popular position, and (like you) I think, "Great! this is an improvement". But by they're done capitulating and cowering and "bipartisaning", we end up with a shitty Republican outcome, which is probably what they intended all along. So I'll believe it when I see it. And if I had to bet money on it, I'd bet on a complete sell-out before it's all said and done. We'll probably end up with an internet that offers a choice of 50 web-sites consisting mostly of ads, excise-taxes for those whose ISPs provide "Cadillac" plans, and every household will be required to buy internet service or face a fine.

[dreamnightwind]

29. Probably true

I'm afraid your negative take on this may turn out to be right. No evidence of it yet as far as I know, we'll see. I share your general statements on what this administration is all about.

I was actually trying to be positive in the post you responded to, I do think these guys are a little better than a Repub admin would be. Not much though, also sometimes a Dem admin can get "reforms" through with less resistance from the left simply because they're supposedly Dems. We'll be up against this when they take on entitlement reform later.

[defendandprotect]

22. Because "they hate our freedom" . . . !!!

:evilgrin:

[boppers]

24. Aw, HELL NO. Requiring printing presses to be licensed?

The government should NOT have a role in this, as it just focuses the power on big players, leading to the likely elimination of every small ISP in the country.

[Occulus]

33. As others said upthread, this is actually about net neutrality.

The FCC wants to keep companies like Comcast from giving Comcast subscribers' data transfers preferred access to the parts of the internet Comcast 'owns' (the networks they bought or built, their websites, etc). What Comcast and other big players want to do is make sure they can give subscribers faster speeds for Comcast content, for example, or (pure speculation follows) put an ad that generates revenue for them in front of every video feed a subscriber views that doesn't come from Comcast. Something else they'd probably like to do is rootkit into your PC a popup adbox that activates every time your data request (say, a website) gets routed through their network. They'd certainly want to slow your data down and give their own subscribers preferred treatment.

Things like that. The big players also want to be able to throttle users who engage in high data transfers (several gigabytes at a time, for example). That and that alone would be utterly devastating; there are many people who perform system updates in that size range, and online product distribution systems like Valve Software's very very popular Steam platform would become crippled fairly quickly.

Imagine the following scenario:

You are a subscriber of Company X, and the networks of the only two "players" in your region (say, Comcast and Charter) happen to surround yours geographically. Company X is a "lilypad" in a big pond. Your YouTube request will be at your maximum subscribed speed on Company X's network, but as soon as it got routed into Charter or Comcast's network, it would get slowed down. Maybe they would even queue your request, delaying it until their subscribers' requests were satisfied, and then passing on yours only at a slower speed while it's on their network. Now imagine all the corporate property not owned by Company X that sits between you and your YouTube video. Suddenly your request is subject to multiple "preference policies" both coming and going, as is the data that makes up the YouTube video itself.

This is how you make YouTube, and Hulu, and even our own DU less usable. This is what the FCC wants to avoid.

Until we mandate that all players in the industry update the networks they own to fiber, and put in place a truly massive program to lay fiber-optic cable coast to coast in an internet 2.0 version of the Transcontinental Railroad, we will continue to hear these companies piss and moan about some users' high data transfer/bandwidth usage, and they will continue to try to squeeze.

[Baclava]

30. The FCC can kiss my ass

You can tell them I said that.

[Kurska]

36. What a terrible fucking title.

More like "FCC seeks ways to keep comcast from asserting authority over web use"