FCC plans to do something

[Tyen]

“Further, the imposition of net neutrality rules will degrade the value of unencumbered licenses purchased in the most recent auctions and threaten the integrity of the auction process. The FCC considered ‘openness' requirements in the 700 MHz auction and chose to apply those requirements to a single block of spectrum. To extend that requirement, and more, now would raise serious legal issues and threaten the integrity of future auctions."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who has championed more Internet regulation to stop what he calls “gatekeepers,” said he will support reasonable network management, which means one thing to an Internet service provider offering 768 kilobit per second speeds, and one offering 50 Megabit per second speeds. Further, reasonable network management means something different to wireless and wireline broadband access providers, Copps noted. He also said the commission is charged with serving consumers' best interests, not to mediate between corporate giants.

Comments on open Internet due in January - Fcc Wireless Regulations - RCR Wireless News

[Face Gator]

Hopefully they don't fuck it up.

[lendarios]

On an FCC related article

They have taken a stand on net neutrality and McCain now wants to prevent the FCC acting on it. I not surprised at all by his actions. I'm glad he was not elected president.

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday proposed formal rules regarding net neutrality.

The commission said the draft rules would permit broadband Internet access service providers to engage in reasonable network management.

They would not, however, be able to prevent a user from: using a particular application, like BitTorrent; connecting to their network of choice; and accessing competing products. Providers could also not discriminate against lawful apps, and they would be required to disclose their network management practices.

Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that the commission would develop a Technical Advisory Process so that the "difficult engineering questions we face are fully informed by a broad range of engineers based on sound engineering principles and not on politics."

Julie Knapp, chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, will head up the effort.

The chairman also proposed six "conceptual commitments" regarding the Internet.

"First, the goal is and must remain without compromise preserving a free and open internet. Any rules we adopt must preserve our freedom to connect, to communicate, and to create that is the wonder of the open Internet," Genachowski said.

Genachowski also called for a policy that promotes investment and innovation. "The idea that we must choose between innovation and investment on the 'edge' of the network, where content and applications are developed, or innovation and investment in the 'core' of the network, where broadband providers operate, is a false choice," he said.

The chairman also acknowledged that providers have the right to manage their networks. "Openness rules should be sufficiently general and flexible enough to account for, and invite, technological change and progress," he said.

That flexibility means that the government should not be running the Web. "That is also why I have been clear that government should not be in the business of running or regulating the Internet. Government should promote competition," he said.

Genachowski also stressed that the rules would apply to lawful content, not things like spam. He also said that wireless networks should also apply. "It doesn't make sense to have one Internet when your laptop is plugged into a wall and another when accessing the Internet through a wireless modem," he said.

The chairman did stress, however, that the networks differ. "Given fundamental differences in technology, how, when and to what extent open Internet rules should apply to different access platforms, particularly mobile broadband, will undoubtedly vary," he said.

The FCC also wants comment on how it should address "managed" or "specialized" services, like voice, video, and enterprise business services, or specialized applications like telemedicine, smart grid, or eLearning offerings.

"The heart of the problem is that, taken together, we face the dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open Internet," Genachowski said. "Given the potentially huge consequences of having the open Internet diminished through inaction, the time is now to move forward with consideration of fair and reasonable rules of the road, rules that would be enforceable and implemented on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, it would be a serious failure of responsibility not to consider such rules, for that would be gambling with the most important technological innovation of our time."

The issue is now open for a public comment period. Stakeholders have until January 14, 2010 to file the first round of comments and until March 5, 2010 to file reply comments. After that, it's at the FCC's discretion when and if they take any action on the issue.

FCC Proposes Formal Net Neutrality Rules - Reviews by PC Magazine

[Erronius]

I hate being kept in suspense. You're from the future Tyen, how does this turn out?




Is this what you were sent back in time to disrupt?

[Araxen]

McCain is just wasting his time. Obama would never sign the bill even if it got to his desk somehow.

[Veil]

Once again its hilarious seeing how politics works. McCain wants to "keep government out of the internet!" Conveniently not saying who is the biggest beneficiary of less regulation. No, its not us the consumer. Where have we heard this before?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[Evelys]

The old man doesn't even know how to use the interwebs. It's just sad that any person, no matter who they are, can feel that they can give an opinion from a position of power on something they know nothing about.

[Haus]

One thing to consider about net neutrality. Removing the ability of ISPs to control bandwidth usage and QoS undermines one of the primary means by which people have gotten the "all you can eat" internet access we all enjoy today.

Ask anybody who actually pays a per mb rate for internet access for say, a web server, or other service, what bandwidth costs are like.

The way ISP's have been able to offer low cost historically has been to buy X amount of bandwidth, then sell 5-10X amount of bandwidth on the premise that "people don't use all their bandwidth all the time". And enforcing QoS on those who actually do in many cases.

Now, with the expansion of streaming higher definition/higher quality content eventually there will be a bandwidth crunch. Which means getting companies to invest in newer higher capacity infrastructure (some of this is already starting.)

Start making it a government regulation that you can't sell access to the internet through your networks the way you want to and you take away a good deal of the incentive for these companies to build a better net.

[Veil]

Start making it a government regulation that you can't sell access to the internet through your networks the way you want to and you take away a good deal of the incentive for these companies to build a better net.

so is a good deal like 10-15%, or more like 55-75%. What a load of horseshit. The incentive to expand bandwith has nothing to do with net neutrality. telecom companies dont have the incentive to expand bandwith, because the more scarce it is the more they can charge for it. Never mind the government subsidies that exist for that kind of thing. The subsidies they squander because once again, its not in their best interests.

The way ISP's have been able to offer low cost historically has been to buy X amount of bandwidth, then sell 5-10X amount of bandwidth on the premise that "people don't use all their bandwidth all the time". And enforcing QoS on those who actually do in many cases.

80% of subscribers use less than 10% of bandwith. I know you're a little biased against government, and pro corporation, but this is just sad. Even casino's can't fuck with their clientele like this.

Lets see if anyone can come up with reasons why telecom companies might want to make McCain the face of opposing net neutrality. Number one, they have given him more money than anyone else in the last 2 years. On top of that the old SoB doesnt even know what FTP, p2p or bandwith even mean.

How long ago was it Comcast was found targeting and slowing p2p? Would they consider blocking it entirely if given the opportunity? I hear all kinds of arguments about opponents of net neutrality saying they have no plans to block or degrade network performance, but sadly they already have a precedence of doing that exact thing.

Only a douchebag can think that a network that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms is a bad thing. I can understand advocating comcasts right to make a buck but how long have they been selling 5-10 times the actual bandwith they have to offer? Telecom companies have most likely been manipulating broadband consumers for years. In the event they actually spent money on infrastructure and not on mega mergers, incurring a mega loss to their books and writing it off as a tax deduction maybe you would see a bit more sympathy from me.

[Sharmai]

Originally Posted by Veil

80% of subscribers use less than 10% of bandwith. I know you're a little biased against government, and pro corporation, but this is just sad. Even casino's can't fuck with their clientele like this

I'm tired of this argument because gives off such an incomplete picture. First the largest portion of of that 10% isn't P2P, rather, it is your youtube's hulu's, and netflix's of the world. 10 years ago content that could only be accessed via your IRC underworld (streaming or full video) is now widely available and highly sought by novice internet users everywhere. 10 years from now blu-ray 3, 30 GB games, and god knows what else will be that 10% your ISP's are complaining about while youtube's, hulu's, and psp will be the norm.

What I am saying is that while a minority of the users are using the majority of the bandwidth now what they are really doing is showing where consumer demand will lead within a relatively short period of time. If we artificially stunt are grow by killing net neutrality then we are also stunting the grow of our technological advancement in this area. And all that while our nearest majority competitor countries are already significantly more advanced then we are.

[Phoenix]

And who says ISPs are never going to upgrade their lines from now on? I just dont when people scream the ISPs are fucking us over and the entire network of the US is severely outdated. I mean, I pay $55 a month for a 20mbit line right now, something that sure as hell was never avialable 10 years ago and Im almost positive it will only get better as time goes on.

[Dumar]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

And who says ISPs are never going to upgrade their lines from now on? I just dont when people scream the ISPs are fucking us over and the entire network of the US is severely outdated. I mean, I pay $55 a month for a 20mbit line right now, something that sure as hell was never avialable 10 years ago and Im almost positive it will only get better as time goes on.

all you have to do is use the internet and lookup the history of att, govt, and subsidies. they are dicking us over; they've dicked us over for over 2 decades; they will continue to do so as long as people think as this.

it's not opinion or even worth discussing. they are dicking us over. welcome to america, where freedom and fairness is trumped by corps and politics going to bed together and fucking every.single.night.

[Veil]

i find it possible that there may be a bandwith crunch in the near future. But to say that government regulation of net neutrality will be the force behind less net infrastructure is laughable. Creating an artificial deficit will in fact be very beneficial to the ISP's. They will charge more for the same services cause ZOMG THE INTERNETS ARE USED UP! I find it much more plausible that telecom in their benevolent overminding glory will instead choose to throttle up said 10% because the masses probably wouldn't even notice the difference anyways.

I don't feel like I'm being fucked over by my ISP, but thats no reason to think they wouldn't given half the chance. There is money to increase bandwith if they want to. Instead they'd rather spend billions to buy up smaller companies so they dont have to... whats that word? COMPETE.

[ChewieTobbacca]

FCC plans to do something

Impressive

[Dumar]

you may not 'feel' cheated by your isp, but what people feel and reality are usually not the same.

if you compare what the rest of the industrialized world gets for what they pay, compounded by the amount of subsidies att and the other telcos have gotten to upgrade and done shit, then look at the amount of bandwidth they have oversold, THEN look at their best practices--ie, absorb rival companies instead of compete, line politicians pockets, yadda yadda--you come to the objective fact that customers are getting hosed to make their profit margins ever so higher.

market forces work.. when the govt steps in. oh, but only when the govt isn't actually in bed with business. oh wait, which is hardly ever. it's like a gigantic orgy of money, corruption, and talking head ideology fed to the public all rolled into a giant glob.