Waxman Readies Net Neutrality Bill With No Room for FCC Ruling

[babylonsister]

OK, can someone explain this to me? Is it good or bad? I'm tech-challenged. :blush:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003741080

Waxman Readies Net Neutrality Bill With No Room for FCC Ruling


The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is making a final push for legislation to set rules on Internet non-discrimination that would take the issue out of the hands of the Federal Communications Commission.

Henry A. Waxman , D-Calif., is leading a bipartisan effort in the House to write a bill on “network neutrality,” with the aim of introducing it as early as Tuesday and bringing it to the House floor before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections. A spokeswoman for Waxman said Monday that talks were ongoing.

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, which stretched through the weekend, Waxman and his allies have drafted a measure that would establish some new regulations to foster net neutrality by “wireline” broadband Internet access providers — those who offer connectivity through phone lines and cable modems.

But the draft measure would contain fewer restrictions on the burgeoning market for wireless Internet access. And, according to one source, the draft would leave room for access providers to offer preferential treatment to some customers at a premium.

Perhaps most importantly, the draft — which would expire at the end of 2012 — would forbid the FCC from unilaterally reclassifying its jurisdiction over broadband Internet access, as FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has proposed doing.

Such a provision would be a big win for the handful of telecommunications and cable companies that dominate the broadband market. It would also leave the FCC in limbo in terms of pursuing some of the goals of its ambitious plan for fostering broadband deployment, including a proposal to revamp a federal fund for telephone services so that its revenues could be used to finance broadband services.

Senate Commerce Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV , D-WVa., who favors a reclassification of the FCC’s jurisdiction, has said he would oppose legislation that would block the commission from doing so.

[Auggie]

1. I don't like this section:

"...leave room for access providers to offer preferential treatment to some customers at a premium."

[babylonsister]

2. Maybe he had to offer some compromises; if the customers

want to pay for premiums, that's pretty much what's going on now, isn't it? :shrug: I still don't quite understand, but think Waxman is very level-headed and I hope he knows what he's doing.

[Auggie]

4. Let's see if I get this right...

The current premium comes in the form of faster data rate access in terms of speed -- the difference between dial-up and broadband, for example. It does not apply to the kind of content that is being exchanged nor to the organizations providing it.

KeepItReal has the answer below.

[boppers]

5. No, you can pay for faster specific types of content, too.

(Getting priority set for video conference streaming, or guaranteed bandwidth between locations, for example.)

Very few actually do, because of the the costs involved, and make do with lower/less reliable throughput.

[Auggie]

8. Didn't know that. Thanks.

[KeepItReal]

3. Here's a good guide on what Net Neutrality is

The skinny on Net neutrality (FAQ)

What is Net neutrality?
There is no clear definition of the phrase "Net neutrality." But to most people it simply means that Internet users should be able to have unfettered access to content and services on the Web. In other words, broadband service providers should not be allowed to monkey with the traffic to block certain content or slow it down.

Are there any laws or regulations that currently keep the Internet "open"?
No, there have never been enforceable rules or laws written to specifically tell broadband providers what they can and cannot do on their networks. Some legislation has been proposed, but all efforts up to this point have failed. The Federal Communications Commission has written Net neutrality principles (PDF), but they aren't official rules. The FCC is currently considering official rules that it says it would be able to enforce.

...
... So what are Net neutrality supporters so afraid of?
There is concern that without formal rules of the road, broadband providers could abuse their power. So instead of using their management techniques simply to keep traffic flowing, they might use them to slow or block traffic from competitors to encourage consumers to use their own services more.

For example, say your broadband provider offers a streaming video service. It might be tempted to give its service priority in the network over a competitor's streaming video service. So while a competitor's video service would stutter, the broadband provider's service would fly through the network and provide superior quality.

The other fear is that broadband service providers would make deals with content and application developers and that every Net-based service would charge consumers for a better experience. The only services left on the public Internet would provide crappy, slow, and ad-laden content.


Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20015590-266.html#ixzz10lu94ODC

[boppers]

7. A minor nit with the FAQ:

"But to most people it simply means that Internet users should be able to have unfettered access to content and services on the Web."

Uhm, this isn't just about "the Web", the spark that lit the fire wasn't Web pages at all, it was Comcast slowing down BitTorrent transfers.

In case you have no idea what that means:
1. Comcast (aka xfinity) is a cable-based ISP who simulates high-speed networking (aka broadband) by giving everybody tiny fast brief bursts of maximum speeds on their network.
2. BitTorrent is a protocol used to share large files: Movies, entire albums (and discographies) of artists, software installation CD's and DVD's, etc. It tries to use the whole pipe, all the time, rather than in short bursts (like people do with web surfing).

Thus, since BitTorrent sucks up speed from *everybody* else in a neighborhood (who use a shared connection to emulate personal high-speed networking) Comcast started throttling BitTorrent down, so other people could see web pages at higher speeds.

Comcast was not being "Neutral" to all traffic, it was saying, in effect: "Okay, web pages get priority, file sharing does not".

The idea that cascaded down from this event was "Hey, shouldn't it all get the same priority?". While this is good on some levels, it's bad on others. In my opinion, viruses should not get the same priority as email, and huge file-sharing jobs should not get the same priority as real-time chat.

Jumping into other metaphors about transport, the "Net Neutrality" idea is that all airplane passengers should get to fly first class, and that all mail and packages should be delivered on the next day, regardless of what somebody is paying for that service. While this is certainly technically possible, it's very expensive. It's "Let them eat cake" on the internet, trying to legislate that everybody can afford expensive connections, so all connections should be the same.

[boppers]

6. It's got some possible downsides.

Current filtering limits by private ISPs target bandwidth hogging and unwanted traffic. If those limits are removed, the networks could be put under very costly loads. However, free speech advocates/spammers/hackers/pirates who in the past found themselves designated as "unwanted" would applaud having unfettered access.

As with all things, the devil is in the details. :)