Will the FCC take over the net?
 

Hope this stays off parf...

» It

It is the nature of government. The more you control, the bigger your budget, which creates an incentive for controlling more.

Been nice knowing you..........

The linked article seems to think it's a done deal. So, any idea what type of censorship and/or fees we could expect if the feds take over?

It's for National Security.
Silence is the only way to get the right wingers under control.

Damn!
I guess it's back to the top row of the magazine rack at the convenience store...:(

I've been posting about this for more than a year.

This is about Net Neutrality.

The referenced link's agenda is to prevent expansion of government (which in general I support). But their position on this topic is not in the best interests of the consumer.

The net currently operates on the premise of Net Neutrality (unless you are in china or ME).

Anyone can access anything they want without limitations. That's a good thing.

The FCC has loosely maintained net neutrality even though their authority to do so has always been a grey area..

The large ISP's, Verizon, Cox, Turner, AT&T challenged the FCC's authority on the matter.

Their agenda is simple. They want to tier the internet. Think of your cable TV service. You pay $xx for 100 channels, you want HBO? Cough up $xx more per month. Sports package? That's another $xx per month.

So high bandwidth content that you are currently enjoying, Hulu, Youtube, NetFlix, PlayStation Network, Xbox Live etc...... are all going to cost either you or the provider more. If it costs the provider more you can bet the cost will get passed onto the consumer so end of day the consumer gets hosed.

The FCC and ISP's were in talks to try and hammer the whole thing out. Then it was discovered that google, who proclaimed to be staunch advocates of net neutrality and backed the FCC, and Verizon were having their own private negotiations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html

Google Verizon and Google

I would rather have private companies compete to provide me the services I want (the current model) than the government mandating universally mediocre and expensive service (the net neutrality model).

The one place Comcast doesn't f*** me is for internet service.

For cable, they have figured out how to use the regulations to charge more for less service, and because they are granted a monopoly by the government, there is no one around to compete with them. And no, satelite is not an option in a neighborhood full of 60' trees.

But for internet, I can get it through the phone company and through the cell phone company as well...

Well said...competition creating choice is always best for the consumer.

Net neutrality is the current business model. The FCC is trying to maintain the current situation, the ISPs and the big content providers are tryign to change it.

To date, few (no?) ISPs have actually been discriminating between content by imposing different service levels or extracting different pricing. ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc deliver you webpages and content from content giants like Google/YouTube, eBay, Facebook, etc at more or less the same speed, latency, etc as they deliver content from a medium guy like Pelican or a small guy like your favorite blogger. As a practical matter we have "net neutrality" today.

What the ISPs and the content giants want to do is be able to cut deals between themselves to favor certain companies' Internet traffic over others', in return for a fee. The content giants want to to get their webpages delivered preferentially at higher speeds, with other content providers' webpages being delivered with lower priority, at lower speeds. The ISPs want to get paid for this. That is why they oppose net neutrality.

Personally, I don't want Google and Comcast deciding that I will be able to view YouTube's video streams fast and smoothly, but will have to wait and endure stutters/long buffering if I decide to view video from a different site like Vimeo. Or that I'll get search results lightning fast from Google, but slowly from a different search engine like Bleko. I'd rather the playing field stay level and new, small content providers have the same opportunity to catch on and grow as Google and YouTube did when they were small.

You guys are not getting it.

FCC is looking to maintain what you have TODAY. As in right now.

The private companies are looking to take what you have TODAY and dice it up so they can charge you MORE for the same thing TOMORROW.

What they want is exactly this,

So this will magically be the ONLY time that MORE government regulation leads to lower prices and increased competition?

As soon as government regulates something, it gives the big dogs in an industry a place to lobby to get laws/regulations passed to push the little guys out. This has literally happened in every single industry ever regulated.

Under the current system, anyone can offer internet service that can deliver the technology to deliver it. Under the proposed system, there will certainly be more onerous barriers to entry in the market.

Competition is what keeps the ISPs honest. If tomorrow Comcast decided to block all traffic to BBSes, by next week I'd have Internet through my landline, or through satellite, or through a cell phone provider.

Under the proposed system, the ISPs can lobby the FCC for the right to restrict certain kinds of traffic, it can be granted, and I'm SOL.

Net Neutrality is really just Newspeak for Net Control.

Net Neutrality changes nothing as you now know it.

The problem for the ISP's is this, broadband penetration is saturated right now, ~75% of households. The remaining 25% are mostly too rural (expensive) to be considered for fiber runs or are apartment complexes where access is provided to all tenants over one wire, ISP facing account.

Add in the mobile devices like the iPhone which pushed mobil data traffic higher than anyone has ever seen.

And the type of content has changed drastically to bandwidth sucking rich media.

The ISP's are feeling cheated by VoIP services, (and I can see their point). With respect to the major's they also provide TV. Why would anyone pay $2-3 for an on demand movie when they can sign up for Netflix and get unlimited streaming movies for $8 a month which is carried to the consumer over the ISP's pipe.

The ISP's want a piece of that content pie. Tiering the net is their way to get it.

You cannot tell me that once the government gives itself the right to regulate something, it will stick to its original mandate.

The EPA was created to stop pollution, it has just given itself the right to regulate CO2.

The FCC was created to regulate landlines, it has given itself the right to regulate television and cable.

Even if the FCC sticks to its mandate of "net neutrality" for now...someone at some time will get the bright idea to "improve" the regulations.

Getting the government involved gives lobbyist a one-stop shop for enacting their agenda. The PETA will want hunting videos banned. "Decency" activists will want porn banned. All it will take is a few politicians who want their votes in exchange for delivering their fringe agendas and the internet will no longer be "neutral".

Even from the start, the FCC will be required to decide what things are more equal than others. Should bandwidth be rationed to ensure equality? (Who will pay for the software to enforce the rationing?)

Google got a taste of their own medicine recently over that, too

Google TV being blocked by major networks

and...

More Things You Can't Stream on Google TV: Comedy Central, VH1, and MTV

There are very few companies that own the "last mile" access to your house.

The local cable company owns the coax access - which they acquired during decades of regulated monopoly status. The local telco owns the copper access - again, acquired during decades as a regulated monopoly. As a result, a handful of companies effectively have a oligoopoly over the last mile access required to deliver wired Internet access to most Americans' homes. They would like to use this oligopoly control to extract payments from the content providers. And the biggest content providers would like to enlist the access providers to disadvantage competing content providers. Thus the efforts to change the current system of de facto net neutrality. No dominant company actually wants to compete in a free market, you know.

Things are different in wireless. There, each Anerican has a choice between several wireless access providers, and anyone can start another access business, you just need about $10 billion. So I don't have a strong opinion about whether net neutrality should apply to wireless.

Interesting.

There is only one reason that this is an issue at all.

The ISP's, desire to take more control of the net purely for their own financial gains.

They have spent hundreds of millions of $'s lobbying and contributing to political campaigns with the sole purpose of separating you from more of your money.

The FCC sat with them to try and hammer it out. But Verizon got caught talking out of both sides of their face and forced the the FCC into this position.

And you're on their side?

Recent related development. Comcast informed Level Three, who handles the online streaming of movies for Netflix, that it would block online movies to a Comcast subscriber unless Level Three pays Comcast a fee per subscriber.

People don't understand "net neutrality" it would be a bad thing and it has nothing to do with your home Internet connection.

The reason is because the handoff of data is totally lopsided. Level 3 gives bandwidth away for pennies then hands it off to companies that actually have infrastructure in place.