Divided FCC adopts rules to protect Web traffic

[Kosar_For_President]

I had to post this. I've seen 4,000 comments on Yahoo with people saying, this is "the start of communism", "Obama at it again" or "the government limiting my freedoms". I am sick of peoples' allegiance with a "political party" enabling spouting off at an article because 3 of the 5 people on the board are democrats, who the fook cares. It's really starting to piss me off.

After you are done reading let me ask you this, how is prohibiting broadband companies from interfering with Internet traffic flowing to their customers limiting your freedoms?

 

A divided Federal Communications Commission has approved new rules meant to prohibit broadband companies from interfering with Internet traffic flowing to their customers.

 

The 3-2 vote Tuesday marks a major victory for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who has spent more than a year trying to craft a compromise.

 

The FCC's three Democrats voted to pass the rules, while the two Republicans opposed them, calling them unnecessary regulation. The new rules are likely to face intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill once Republicans take over the House. Meanwhile, public interest groups decried the regulations as too weak, particularly for wireless systems.

 

Known as "net neutrality," the rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, such as those from rivals.

 

The rules require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks — including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses. But the rules give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic including spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.

 

The regulations prohibit unreasonable network discrimination — a category that FCC officials say would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority. The rules do, however, leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.

 

In addition, the regulations prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices, and require them to disclose their network management practices, too. But the rules give wireless companies would get more leeway to manage data traffic because wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.

 

Genachowski said the regulations will prohibit broadband providers from abusing their control over the on-ramps that consumers use to get onto the Internet. He said the companies won't be able to determine where their customers can go and what they can do online.

 

"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," Genachowski said. "For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness."

 

Still, the final rules came as a disappointment to public interest groups. Even Genachowski's two Democratic colleagues on the five-member FCC were disappointed, though they still voted to adopt the rules after concluding some safeguards are better than none.

 

They warn that the new regulations may not be strong enough to prevent broadband companies from picking winners and losers on the Internet, particularly on wireless systems, which will have more limited protections. They also worry that the rules don't do enough to ensure that broadband providers cannot favor their own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority — resulting in a two-tiered Internet.

 

"Today's action could — and should — have gone further," said Michael Copps, one of the other two Democrats on the commission. But, he added, the regulations do represent some progress "to put consumers — not Big Phone or Big Cable — in control of their online experiences."

 

At the same time, the two Republicans on the FCC worried that the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from continuing to upgrade their networks by making it difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments. They also insist that the regulations are intended to fix a problem that does not exist, as all the major broadband providers have already pledged not to discriminate against Internet traffic on their networks.

 

"The Internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today," said Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican.

 

Republicans on Capitol Hill vowed to try to block the new regulations. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, plans to introduce a "resolution of disapproval" to try to overturn what she called "troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC."

 

Robert McDowell, the FCC's other Republican, predicted that the FCC will face court challenges to its regulatory authority, too. In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency had exceeded its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network — violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC in 2005.

 

Those principles serve as a foundation for the formal regulations adopted Tuesday.

[calfoxwc]

This gov's push to extend gov power over everything we do...

 

is way out of control. Wait til more reports of the work to get international law

 

to supercede our Constitution. With that? The Obamao gov can do anything they want.

 

We are in big, big, big trouble; it's time to stand up, again, and reverse this power grabbing.

[Westside Steve]

Well it has a lot of gray Kos.

One thing I don't care for is forcing a private business to adhere to arbitrary government rules against thier own interest.

OTOH as a consumer sure I guess I wan't to force Google (or anybody) to offer me more stuff even if it's not to their benefit.

I'm not dumb enough to think that will make things better for me in the long run.

 

Kinda like forcing ABC to advertise the CBS lineup.

I remember Akron Music not putting out Scene Magazine if there was a big Lentine's sale ad.

So?

 

I suppose if I want Yahoo to offer more stuff I oughta be self reliant enough to seek out someone who does and let Yahoo deal with it.

 

Then again I'm suspicious of governmental contols most of the time.

Seems it always leads to no particular good.

Also I don't see the screaming need for this intrusion on private business.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Say, I wonder where the ACLU is hiding while this is going on?

 

(in some flea bit hotel room counting their money...?)

[Kosar_For_President]

Well it has a lot of gray Kos.

One thing I don't care for is forcing a private business to adhere to arbitrary government rules against thier own interest.

OTOH as a consumer sure I guess I wan't to force Google (or anybody) to offer me more stuff even if it's not to their benefit.

I'm not dumb enough to think that will make things better for me in the long run.

 

Kinda like forcing ABC to advertise the CBS lineup.

I remember Akron Music not putting out Scene Magazine if there was a big Lentine's sale ad.

So?

 

I suppose if I want Yahoo to offer more stuff I oughta be self reliant enough to seek out someone who does and let Yahoo deal with it.

 

Then again I'm suspicious of governmental contols most of the time.

Seems it always leads to no particular good.

Also I don't see the screaming need for this intrusion on private business.

WSS

 

I see your point Steve. But this is a measure to make sure business don't infringe on our rights.

 

I guess the million dollar question is should laws be made to control companies abusive powers against their customers. I am all for business operating without most government intervention, but look what happened with the housing market. My point is who is making these decisions and who is in their best interests. With this decision it seems the consumer, which can't be that bad.

 

Where do we draw the line when it is in the best interests of the consumer?

 

Actually not a bad conversation piece because this applies to both parties. Party rhetoric should be left out of the conversation.

[osusev]

For what it is worth, I have been asked (because one of my companies is a technology platform company) by a couple of congressional reps and a senator what my position is on this issue. I happen to also have some relationships with a couple of cable providers.

 

There is one thing I disagree with kosar on, you dont have "rights" when you are accessing bandwidth. The bandwidth you are provided with is supplied by cable/telco providers at their cost.... which means they have to support the bandwidth/lines/nodes/systems at their costs and often they own the lines or towers they are supporting and constructing.

 

You pay for access as an OPTION and they also have the option to service that in a specific way.

 

Google learned that dealing with Verizon.... google has ZERO value if dont have bandwidth and infrastructure that these Telco's have built and support.

 

I understand the need for innovation in technology but their has to be a balance between google and other profiting from the infrastructure that these companies invest in and support at their cost. This is a financial reality and the philosophical argument of "neutrality" ignores the fiscal reality.

 

I think there is a way and have in the past on panels suggested some solutions to governmental reps as well as industry reps.

 

One thing that is a reality is the financial costs in building and supporting these networks and bandwidth based solution providers like google are now learning that their philosophical ideals are based upon the hard work of a network that other companies build and support. There will be a cost sooner or later and some tiering in order for these companies to keep investing in the infrastructure.

 

This is not the last on this issue by a mile, I think both sides need to first start on ongoing support costs as well as future network investments to come up with a solution that can be agreed upon mutually as well as enforced by some guidelines that the FCC can enforce in case one side defaults.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

I tend to agree with Sev here.

Let me give an example.

You're familiar with DAWs right?

Anyway these days they all do the same stuff and most users like one better.

I never liked Protools mostly because of the proprietary hardware.

You had to buy their stuff to run it.

OK I bought Cakewalk decades ago and now I'm at X1.

Protools latest release just came out as an open platform.

Might I have used it years ago if that were the case then?

Maybe but the government didn't force them to accept other stuff. I made the decision as a consumer.

But I figure of company A builds a delivery system (like a copper wire network) they oughta be able to run it as they like without being forced to let company B reap the rewards.

 

Anyway when that structure becomes obsolete (like those copper wires) company A will be SOL.

So I guess they need to make some hay whgile the sun shines.

 

Next: General Midi

 

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

For what it is worth, I have been asked (because one of my companies is a technology platform company) by a couple of congressional reps and a senator what my position is on this issue. I happen to also have some relationships with a couple of cable providers.

 

There is one thing I disagree with kosar on, you dont have "rights" when you are accessing bandwidth. The bandwidth you are provided with is supplied by cable/telco providers at their cost.... which means they have to support the bandwidth/lines/nodes/systems at their costs and often they own the lines or towers they are supporting and constructing.

 

You pay for access as an OPTION and they also have the option to service that in a specific way.

 

Google learned that dealing with Verizon.... google has ZERO value if dont have bandwidth and infrastructure that these Telco's have built and support.

 

I understand the need for innovation in technology but their has to be a balance between google and other profiting from the infrastructure that these companies invest in and support at their cost. This is a financial reality and the philosophical argument of "neutrality" ignores the fiscal reality.

 

I think there is a way and have in the past on panels suggested some solutions to governmental reps as well as industry reps.

 

One thing that is a reality is the financial costs in building and supporting these networks and bandwidth based solution providers like google are now learning that their philosophical ideals are based upon the hard work of a network that other companies build and support. There will be a cost sooner or later and some tiering in order for these companies to keep investing in the infrastructure.

 

This is not the last on this issue by a mile, I think both sides need to first start on ongoing support costs as well as future network investments to come up with a solution that can be agreed upon mutually as well as enforced by some guidelines that the FCC can enforce in case one side defaults.

 

 

Sev and Steve, while I agree we don't have "rights" when you are accessing bandwidth, what I don't agree with is that they restrict WHAT you can access. I understand it is a product and is VERY costly to create the infrastructure, but by no means should cable companies (like Comcast did) restrict from certain website, aka China. I know it's not China extreme and are not filtering content, they are restricting sites that MAY create a high amount of bandwidth.

 

Another issue I have with these cable companies is their monopoly bullshit. Where I live there is one provider that has a customer satisfaction rating of like 10 out of 100. It's bad. Their service is down 30% of the month and when you call they transfer you 3 times so you give up and not call. I am the web/creative director at the company I work for but we are first an IT company. It's a joke about their service here. And this is just one company, I've had the same issues with EVERY, yes EVERY, cable company I have done business with. Shoot, I got a $500 class action lawsuit check last year from Quest out in Denver from 8 years ago, dicking over it's customers.

 

Maybe it's a personal vendetta, but I will use as much bandwidth as much as I can, I don't give a fook.

[Kosar_For_President]

I tend to agree with Sev here.

Let me give an example.

You're familiar with DAWs right?

Anyway these days they all do the same stuff and most users like one better.

I never liked Protools mostly because of the proprietary hardware.

You had to buy their stuff to run it.

OK I bought Cakewalk decades ago and now I'm at X1.

Protools latest release just came out as an open platform.

Might I have used it years ago if that were the case then?

Maybe but the government didn't force them to accept other stuff. I made the decision as a consumer.

But I figure of company A builds a delivery system (like a copper wire network) they oughta be able to run it as they like without being forced to let company B reap the rewards.

 

Anyway when that structure becomes obsolete (like those copper wires) company A will be SOL.

So I guess they need to make some hay whgile the sun shines.

 

Next: General Midi

 

WSS

 

Somewhat agree Steve. I think it is a different ballgame. Software is intellectual property. A cable running through my back yard isn't. IMO. But say ProTools is now on an open platform (didn't know that) should they restrict options in the program because you don't buy the M-Box? That is my argument.

 

Oh by the way, ProTools is the ONLY software I couldn't crack. EVER. Which is why I bought the m-box pro.

[Mr. T]

What is coming from acrossed the big pond?

 

In European countries, the larger cell phone companies are having a hard time competing with majicphone, the same folks who brought you majicjack. u can get a internet phone for something like 15 to 20 bucks a month. sure would beat the hellout of our att, sprint verizon and so on if these guys can bring their product here wouldn't it?

 

Follow the money and you may find out what the motive for regulating the internet is all about.

 

Hell I wouldlove to just pay 20 bucks a month for cell/internet service.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Somewhat agree Steve. I think it is a different ballgame. Software is intellectual property. A cable running through my back yard isn't. IMO. But say ProTools is now on an open platform (didn't know that) should they restrict options in the program because you don't buy the M-Box? That is my argument.

 

I get it.

But I think the more government gets it's fingers into the internet the shitter it will be.

 

But as to the cable in your backyard, if it's owned by X then X can rightly put the clamps on the competition.

If I don't like 'em I'll go with Y or Z.

But do we want the Homerville village council making those decisions?

 

Lets not kid ourselves, there's a long list of politicians on both sides we'd rather not have in control of what there might be on the net.

 

Oh by the way, ProTools is the ONLY software I couldn't crack. EVER. Which is why I bought the m-box pro.

 

That's what I hear.

They rushed X1 to market but fixes oughta be out soon.

WSS

[osusev]

Kosar,

 

I have a web based platform... which means I really need net neutrality in order to make plans long term. Here is the rub.... no one "owns" the cloud but..... IF(this is a hypothetical) say comcast lets you have access to services that hurt their base income stream (redistributing contractual content from ABC as an example) on a network they built and support within their investment areas (monopolies is actually incorrect) the correction is it takes TONS of money and CLEARANCE from local/state and federal to lay the fiber and poles they do which is where they are granted exclusive from the municipalities because of the initial capital investment and ongoing investment to sustain plus the taxes that are levied on them........

 

the scenario for all of this is based on future profit to reclaim against initial investment and profit on top of ongoing costs.... without which you dont have the fiber/poles/towers. They are not evil.... really what is "evil" is basically stealing from web based broadcasters that profit massively from these telco's.

 

Protecting future investments and past investments from challengers that basically ride off their back and provide zero income to them is wrong any way you slice it. In order for those companies (which google just learned) they have to consider HOW consumers access them and at what cost those that provide it incur. To promote other services that cut into the bottom line of how these telco's exist and ignore it for philosophical reasons is extremely unreasonable. You cant have access to whatever you want at the cost of the companies who provide and support the very network. Their HAS to be a give and take along with consideration to all parties.

 

My company will exist ONLY if their is bandwidth and is the core part of our strategy, so we are also trying to incorporate the telcos and give them technologies and income stream to induce their cooperation. I made the initial analytics that said long term they had to be a mutually beneficial outcome for long term survival for a pure web based platform to exist.

 

I dont know how this is all going to shake out but my guess is that past investments along with future investments will be the primary anchor this will revolve around.

 

The publics perception is important like it is on wall street but also like wall street the public really does not understand how and why the market actually works. The web or tech community really only cares about themselves and rarely considers the facts of financial investments.

 

I had these arguments recently with some web based "leaders" and asked them how they are going to grow the consumer bases access to broadband while eroding the income stream of the very companies that are building them.... I also asked them if someone moved into a house they built and proceeded to rent out all of the rooms for themselves, took all the money and them told them to build them more houses for them to do the same how exactly would they feel? Then to top that off the renters create other options to build houses virtually so the builder and owner of the house also loses the future ability to build....

 

That is essentially what is happening to telcos now. The funny thing is once I phrased those questions these... "leaders" of web companies had zero answers.... like google to verizon.

 

The governments role here is to referee and insure growth not listen to a popularity contest.... the "popular in crowd" is the web technology companies that are basically doing the scenario i laid out. Popular to the masses does not mean right.....

[calfoxwc]

In other words, ban all conservative net sites, because they are too popular, so we anti-conservative libs "can have more bandwidth".

 

Funny how that works, eh?

 

Kinda like "We should ban private gun ownership in America, because we need the steel to make company buildings

to "put people back to work"

 

Any cause is a great cause, if it helps radicalism.

[Westside Steve]

So Kos, could you give mne anb example (hypothetical is OK) in which this oversight might come into play?

Any reasonable projected problem?

 

And:Sev, have you experiened any trouble along those lines?

 

Just curious, thanks.

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

So Kos, could you give mne anb example (hypothetical is OK) in which this oversight might come into play?

Any reasonable projected problem?

 

And:Sev, have you experiened any trouble along those lines?

 

Just curious, thanks.

WSS

 

Sorry Steve what's the question?

[Westside Steve]

Hi Kos.

I'm wondering what particular problem that the new regulation is meant to remedy.

Even if they're hypothetical.

 

I think we can all speculate on possible downside.

 

 

And I wonder how it effects Sevs business in real terms.

Not bickering just curious.

 

WSS

[Kosar_For_President]

Hi Kos.

I'm wondering what particular problem that the new regulation is meant to remedy.

Even if they're hypothetical.

 

I think we can all speculate on possible downside.

 

 

And I wonder how it effects Sevs business in real terms.

Not bickering just curious.

 

WSS

 

The problem is putting limits on bandwidth. Hampers what I need to download. Legal software, Voip, performance of websites (eComm), everything.

[osusev]

Kos,

 

The telco's are trying to RECOUP some costs that increased bandwidth usage is costing them.... not necessarily limit you from specific services... Now will they be tempted to possibly hurt some competitive service to their VOIP or content distribution?

 

YES

 

Steve,

 

the industry is not really being regulated nor does it have really "standards" that are enforced which is good and bad. Bad for the consumer because their is way to much confusion, good for innovation and good for those who can navigate the technology waters and sell services to those who are confused.

 

I look for regulation to enforce fair.... (subjective) access from telco's but I do think that tiering bandwidth like cellular plans is totally fair as long as it is source agnostic.

 

This is going to take years to sort thru... both sides are throwing money at senators and reps which means nothing will be conclusive... the more realistic option will be some technologies will disrupt or standardize the industry in some way that creates a mutually beneficial outcome for web based services and bandwidth infrastructure providers..... thats a pretty tall order but you never know.