We WON net neutrality, just like that?

[dixiegrrrrl]

Am I dreaming?
Am I not seeing the hidden agenda?

Do we really have an FCC on OUR side???

"But today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski made Internet lines subject to the same rules as telephone networks, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. These rules, which come from Title 2 of the Communications Act, state that service providers should not block or restrict speed or bandwidth for websites or applications because of their content or the nature of the traffic. According to this act, carriers are required to provide service when requested, to provide service at a reasonable rate, and to provide service without “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities or services.”

The FCC has also recently proposed a plan to bring more broadband service with faster download speeds to more homes across America. We applaud the Commission’s stand for Internet access and the freedom of users to browse and download as they please. We do wonder, however, just how far the FCC will get in this newest attempt to regulate net neutrality for ISPs before the big telecom companies start fighting back."

http://mashable.com/2010/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-2/

[babylonsister]

1. It's looking pretty good. They're working FOR us for a change. nt

[Scuba]

2. This is an important victory for free speech

[X_Digger]

4. Not just free speech, but also association and privacy

If internet providers are prohibited from 'shaping' traffic based on the sites and applications you visit / use, what legitimate reason do providers have to monitor those items?

Imagine a "christian" ISP de-prioritizing traffic to sites not deemed "family friendly".

Imagine a staunch rightwing ISP de-prioritizing traffic to sites that lean left.

[Scuba]

10. Nailed it.

[onenote]

3. not exactly

The Chairman of the FCC has outlined a proposal that will be put forward for public comment that would give the FCC authority to adopt "net neutrality" regulations. What the final rule will look like is still unknown as is the timing of its adoption. Moreover, it will in all likelihood be a decision that is taken to court and whether it withstands challenge is another question the answer to which won't be known for some time.

FInally, there are disturbing signs that a practice that net neutrality doesn't address could have some similar implications for the "openness' of the Internet. While the net neutrality issue has focused in large part on the right of Internet users to gain non-discriminatory access to any lawful content on the web without their internet access provider blocking or limiting that access, it would not address the new practice of content sites picking and choosing which Internet Service Providers can deliver access to their content. ESPN3 (formerly ESPN360) is an example of this new model. ESPN doesn't want to give away the content for free, but they also don't want to employ an a la carte subscription model in which you access their site through your ISP and then engage directly with ESPN3 for a subscription. Rather, ESPN3 is essentially blocking access to their content to the users of ISPs unless the ISP itself pays a fee -- to be passed along to broadband access customers -- for the service. If you get broadband from an ISP that has agreed to pay ESPN, you are essentially paying for that service whether you want it or not. And if your ISP resists paying ESPN (or ESPN refuses to sell to a particular ISP), and you want access to that site, your only choice is to switch to an ISP that has made a deal with ESPN.

In short, the FCC's announcement about net neutrality is the start of a very long process of defining how the Internet is going to operate and be regulated.

[rudy23]

5. Great post. I've been wondering about this.

We have to stay vigilant on this. It definitely looks like a long term, if not lifetime battle.

[X_Digger]

6. Are you referring to the ' 2 go' services?

ie, if I'm a comcast subscriber, I can visit hbo.com and enter my comcast.com credentials and get access to hbo's on demand content because comcast has verified that I pay for hbo?

If that's what you're talking about, then I have no problem with it. Why should hbo, cinemax, etc not provide free content to those who pay for their channel via their local cable provider?

If you don't pay for hbo, why should they provide you content for free?

[onenote]

11. no this is different

ESPN is demanding that, in order for any ISP to be able to have any of its customers access ESPN3, the ISP must pay ESPN a "per subscriber" fee for every broadband subscriber without regard to whether those subscribers also are video customers who receive ESPN services (or are video customers at all). If you have no interest in watching ESPN, but just want ISP service for email, you are still forced to be an ESPN subscriber by ESPN -- their content is bundled with Internet access.

[X_Digger]

13. That sounds like an issue to take up with your ISP

ESPN has a right to choose who has access to their content. Just putting a site on the internet doesn't mean that you lose control over who accesses it. I can choose not to let those in saudi arabia access my content. Or people whose ip address starts with the number 2, because I hate the number 2. I can block people who come to my site via facebook.

An extension of that would be that ESPN can choose who access their content, contingent on a fee paid by your ISP.

[onenote]

15. I have no problem with ESPN wanting to be a subscription service

I have a problem with them selling it through the backdoor in a way that makes every customer pay for it whether they want it or not.

[X_Digger]

16. Shitty business practice, I agree.

But I can't see the regulatory power to stop it.

[onenote]

20. would take addtional regulatory authority no doubt

But if Congress wanted to do so, it could insist that the sale of connectivity be kept separate from the sale of content.

[X_Digger]

21. And hope that congress doesn't screw it up..

There are 'bundles' that combine internet access with access to exclusive content for subscribers.

eta: (full disclosure: I work for Verizon who sells phone, TV, & internet service.)

[jberryhill]

8. So?

While I'm not personally crazy about that content distribution model, the content owner can make it available on any terms they want.

This is really apples and oranges here. Neutrality is about the tubes, and not whatever terms the content provider wants to employ.

[onenote]

12. once you accept allowing content and Internet access to be bundled

how do you justify net neutrality regulation?

If you accept the idea that a content provider can decide which ISPs will be allowed to provide connectivity to their content, how do you distinguish a situation where instead of the ISP paying the content provider to make sure it has access, it pays the content provider one price for one speed and a different price for a faster speed, giving that content site a leg up over other sites.

Now one could argue that its consistent with net neutrality for an ISP to discriminate among content sites provided that it offers the same terms to all sites. But some would argue that gives the established entities a leg up over new sites who can't afford to buy the same faster access etc as the established site.

[jberryhill]

17. You are really missing the point

The point about net neutrality is that the ISP can't block access.

There are subscription services of all sorts on the internet. For example, I don't see anything wrong with subscribing to Netflix in order to stream movies.

But the point here is that any other streaming video service can compete with Netflix on an equal footing.

Now, I can see things like regional licensing issues. For example, you can listen to Pandora in the US, but if you are connecting via a non-US IP address, they won't stream to it. I haven't tried Netflix outside of the US, but wouldn't be surprised if the situation was similar.

You seem to be frustrated with the idea that regulation doesn't reach an endpoint. Absolutely, any regulatory framework establishes the ground rules for the next round of the game, but that's nothing new. The idea is that you look for socially undesirable consequences of each successive iteration, and work out the wrinkles each time. It's not as if one reaches utopia.

I guess the bottom line is "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". But you don't get to that next bridge without crossing the present one. But I'm not going to froth over the terms on which content providers license their materials just yet, because that is not generally odious.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Good explanation, many thanks.

[Flipper999]

7. The fight doesn't end, but...

this is a great step. I've been very worried about corporate interests turning the net into something similar to cable. Having to pay premiums for access to "nonstandard" sites and making it more difficult to find real news. MSNBC, CNN, and (ugh) Fox are so terrible at reporting that I've come to rely on the web and NPR for information.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Not yet, they are going down the new laws/regualtions route. It will take time

and the fight is not yet over.

[troubledamerican]

23. There's a trick ending

like Social Security privatization, vote machine fraud "resolved" & Shutter Island.

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. Bush/Conservatives would have supported this...

Come on guys. Bush and all his corporate buddies would have supported this. They would have stood up for the little guy. Why's everyone always picking on Baby Bu$h?

[jgraz]

19. No. Not even close.

Even if we end up clearly "winning" this round, the issue will come up again and again (and again) as long as corporate interests lack complete control over the content of the internet. Prepare to fight this for the next several decades.

[WinkyDink]

22. Republicans' hidden goal for 2012.