Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data rules

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,080
Likes
10,923
Points
113
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091018/D9BDKHR80.html

Hurdles remain as FCC ponders Internet data rules


WASHINGTON (AP) - With Democrats in charge in Washington, supporters of so-called "net neutrality" rules seem poised to finally push through requirements that high-speed Internet providers give equal treatment to all data flowing over their networks.

These rules - at the heart of a five-year policy debate - are intended to guarantee that Internet users can go to any Web site and access any online service they want. Phone and cable companies, for instance, wouldn't be able to block subscribers from using cheaper Internet calling services or accessing online video sites that compete with their core businesses.

Yet making that happen is proving thorny - and it's likely that the courts and perhaps even Congress will ultimately get involved.

The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on a proposal by the agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, to begin crafting regulations to prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet traffic.

Although Genachowski has the support of the other two Democrats on the five-member commission, his proposal has run into strong opposition from the large phone, cable and wireless companies that provide the bulk of U.S. high-speed Internet connections.

Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into their networks, they should be able to operate those networks as they see fit. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on their investments.

Genachowski's proposal has also encountered misgivings among Republicans on the FCC and in Congress, who fear network neutrality rules could discourage broadband providers from continuing to expand and upgrade their systems.

"The risk of regulation really inhibits investment," said Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. Noting the agency's estimated price tag of up to $350 billion to bring broadband connections to all Americans, he added: "How do we pay for all that?"

One thing everyone agrees on is that the FCC will have to sort through some tricky issues as Genachowski's plan moves forward.

One question is how much flexibility broadband providers should have to keep their networks running smoothly by ensuring that high-bandwidth applications such as YouTube videos don't hog too much capacity and impede other traffic like e-mail and online searches. In other words, when does legitimate network management cross the line to become discrimination?

Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Policy Studies, a think tank that promotes free-market approaches, fears the FCC could hurt small, rural carriers that face higher costs to build out their systems. Without the ability to manage traffic, he said, these companies could be forced to make expensive network upgrades they cannot afford.

The FCC also needs to sort out how the rules would apply to wireless systems, which have less bandwidth capacity than wire-based networks and might have greater need for traffic management. AT&T, the exclusive U.S. carrier for Apple Inc.'s iPhone, already is running into capacity challenges given the popularity of the gadget and its scores of bandwidth-consuming applications.

"There could be unintended consequences of applying net neutrality to wireless," said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group.

Genachowski's plan calls for the agency to formally adopt four broadband principles that have guided the FCC's enforcement of communications laws on a case-by-case basis. Those principles state that network operators must allow subscribers to access all online content, applications, services and devices as long as they are legal.

The FCC relied on those guidelines last year when it ordered Comcast to stop blocking subscribers from using an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which is used to transfer large files such as online video. Comcast is challenging the FCC ruling in court.

Genachowski also wants the FCC to adopt two more principles. One would make it clear that broadband providers couldn't discriminate against particular content or applications, either by blocking them completely or by letting other traffic jump ahead in the queue. The other would require providers to disclose network management practices.

He is also seeking to extend all six principles to wireless systems, which have been largely unregulated.

Thursday's vote will launch a proceeding to draft rules based on those principles and open them to public comment. The agency would likely adopt formal regulations by next summer.

Supporters of net neutrality regulations want to prevent broadband companies from becoming online gatekeepers by abusing their control over Internet networks. They warn that a startup like YouTube or Facebook might never have a shot if broadband providers can prioritize their own online services or those of business partners.

"If bandwidth is disproportionately consumed by those who can pay, it would destroy the Internet as a level playing field," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press.

Colin Crowell, a senior counselor to Genachowski, described regulations as "sensible rules of the road to preserve a free and open Internet, which has been an economic and innovation engine for the nation."

But the service providers, along with many Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress, say the FCC chairman has not shown a need for more regulation given the few known examples of discrimination.

Besides Comcast's actions last year, the other major incident occurred in 2005, when a small telecom company in North Carolina blocked subscribers from accessing Vonage Holding Corp.'s Internet phone service. The company reversed course after the FCC stepped in.

"The FCC has a responsibility to prove a market failure before intervening in the market," said Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, the top Republican on the House subcommittee that oversees communications and technology. "I don't think they have proven that."

McDowell, the Republican commissioner, argues that antitrust laws - which aim to prevent companies from abusing their market power - already provide a clear framework to handle such incidents.

Meanwhile, looming over the entire FCC proceeding are questions of jurisdiction. In challenging the BitTorrent ruling, Comcast argued that based on the FCC's deregulation of Internet service in 2002 - a move the Supreme Court upheld three years later - the agency doesn't have authority to mandate nondiscrimination rules.

A decision in the Comcast case is expected next year and if the court rules in the company's favor, it could undermine the net neutrality proceeding at the FCC - forcing the agency to reverse course on deregulation or drawing Congress into the debate.
 
Govt. has no compelling reason to get involved in this at all.

This says it all:

Broadband providers such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. argue that after pouring billions of dollars into their networks, they should be able to operate those networks as they see fit. That includes offering premium services over their lines to differentiate themselves from competitors and earn a healthy return on their investments.
 
Govt. has no compelling reason to get involved in this at all.

This says it all:

I don't think it says it all. Until/unless we can choose whatever cable provider we want, Comcast has a government licensed monopoly (at my house, anyway) and thus should come under government regulation.

Seems to me that you should be a bit concerned about this. Suppose the big carriers decide that S2 isn't something they want on their networks? Suppose they decide they can run sports chat boards just fine themselves without any help from you? Which of course they could, if they were allowed to eliminate all the competition.

barfo
 
I don't think it says it all. Until/unless we can choose whatever cable provider we want, Comcast has a government licensed monopoly (at my house, anyway) and thus should come under government regulation.

Seems to me that you should be a bit concerned about this. Suppose the big carriers decide that S2 isn't something they want on their networks? Suppose they decide they can run sports chat boards just fine themselves without any help from you? Which of course they could, if they were allowed to eliminate all the competition.

barfo

Government shouldn't make monopolies.

Sounds like politicians got bought by special interests.

You do have a choice, though. 3G and Hughes satellite.

I'm a paying customer, if they want to lose sales, good luck to them.

The thing is, the carriers have historically worked together to make the internet sites reachable. There's already premium bandwidth - Google is far more reachable than S2 is. If we want to pay for that premium bandwidth, we would. There's not enough advantage in it for us now.

And the future of the internet is cloud computing, which is where we'd ultimately move if we had to.
 
Government shouldn't make monopolies.

Well, there are arguments to be made both ways. Where physical cable needs to be laid house-to-house, it's hard to have real competition.

I'm a paying customer, if they want to lose sales, good luck to them.

You are paying all the carriers? Really?

And the future of the internet is cloud computing, which is where we'd ultimately move if we had to.

I don't see how that helps you if the company that delivers internet to my devices blocks your site.

barfo
 
Well, there are arguments to be made both ways. Where physical cable needs to be laid house-to-house, it's hard to have real competition.



You are paying all the carriers? Really?


I don't see how that helps you if the company that delivers internet to my devices blocks your site.

barfo


I have a choice of AT&T, Cox, and Time Warner here. They must have been able to run all those cables. Internet can also be delivered over power cables, if the power companies want to get in the game.

I don't have to pay all the carriers. The hosting company we use does.

I don't see why anyone would buy internet service from a company that only offers a subset of the Internet, and I don't see why the companies would block access to the data centers that host tens of thousands of sites to block a handful.

The reverse has been true. When people share files and play MMORPGs and download music and movies, the carriers have built more infrastructure to handle it.

In fact, the cable companies are on the verge of offering 150MBit service, which is 10x faster than the fastest Cox or Comcast or Time Warner offers now.

On top of all that, there's this phenomenon called "tail of the Web" where a lot of sites with little traffic each add up to more traffic than the biggest sites on the Internet. This is how Google makes their money, for example - selling ads on lots of tiny sites.

We're playing plenty of tax on our internet service as is. Check your bill.
 
I have a choice of AT&T, Cox, and Time Warner here. They must have been able to run all those cables.

I'm guessing that you don't actually have 3 cables running to your house - that they've forced the cable companies to share access. But maybe I'm wrong about that. I sure don't have any such options.

Internet can also be delivered over power cables, if the power companies want to get in the game.

Yeah, I've heard that is coming but haven't heard of any companies actually doing that yet.

I don't have to pay all the carriers. The hosting company we use does.

Ok. Do you think the hosting company would quit paying a carrier if they refused to deliver your site to me? I don't guess they would, unless you are their top customer. Besides, even your hosting company probably doesn't pay all the carriers, they probably have feeds from a handful of carriers. I might well be getting an internet feed from someone unrelated. In which case it costs them nothing at all to not send your site to me. Of course I've got to have my S2, so I'd change carriers. But my neighbor might not care enough to switch.

I don't see why anyone would buy internet service from a company that only offers a subset of the Internet, and I don't see why the companies would block access to the data centers that host tens of thousands of sites to block a handful.

They don't have to block access to an entire datacenter to not deliver your site. All they have to do is block your url. As to why people would buy internet service from such a company - if all the carriers do it, then there won't be any particular stigma, or choice, about it. It will be just who blocks what.

On top of all that, there's this phenomenon called "tail of the Web" where a lot of sites with little traffic each add up to more traffic than the biggest sites on the Internet. This is how Google makes their money, for example - selling ads on lots of tiny sites.

Yes. And certainly Comcast isn't going to design their own site for, say, people with a deep and abiding interest in oversized Welsh Corgis with missing legs. But sports? That's general interest enough they might want to do that.

barfo
 
Last edited:
At my house in Vancouver, I have one choice only- Comcast. And they just blow. I agree with barfo in that they have an unfair monopoly in some areas and given their track record, need regulation.
 
At my house in Vancouver, I have one choice only- Comcast. And they just blow. I agree with barfo in that they have an unfair monopoly in some areas and given their track record, need regulation.

The regulation in question has nothing to do with providing competition where government made monopolies.
 
http://www.comcast.net/sports/

They look like they're trying to compete with Yahoo!, not us.

You aren't threatened by their 6000 forum posts on the NBA? :)
Well, I guess I wouldn't be either.
Nevertheless, they have a lot of subscribers, and if their subscribers only option for a basketball forum was Comcast, that board would have a whole lot more posts.

barfo
 
You aren't threatened by their 6000 forum posts on the NBA? :)
Well, I guess I wouldn't be either.
Nevertheless, they have a lot of subscribers, and if their subscribers only option for a basketball forum was Comcast, that board would have a whole lot more posts.

barfo

What are you arguing for?

Nobody's shut off access to S2, and there's no threat of it.

Someone might set fire to your house tomorrow, so let's ban matches.

Sheesh.
 
What are you arguing for?

Nobody's shut off access to S2, and there's no threat of it.

But... but... it's a SLIPPERY SLOPE! Obviously if a law allows a remote possibility of something vaguely related to that happening, then it will happen, and in the worst possible way. Surely that's been established by many posts here over the last few months. Right?

Someone might set fire to your house tomorrow, so let's ban matches.

Sheesh.

No, more accurately, I'm saying let's ban setting fire to my house.
Your argument is hey, they probably will set fire to the library instead, nobody cares about your house. And that's probably true.

barfo
 
Let's put it this way. If you believe it's ok for an internet provider to decide which websites you can look at, do you also think it's ok for a telephone provider to decide who you are allowed to talk to? For the post office to decide who can send you mail?

barfo
 
Any restrictions of content on the internet defeat it's intended purpose, and nearly all of it's usefulness.

When the censorship reaches an annoying enough level, something else will replace the internet.
 
Let's put it this way. If you believe it's ok for an internet provider to decide which websites you can look at, do you also think it's ok for a telephone provider to decide who you are allowed to talk to? For the post office to decide who can send you mail?

barfo

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Barfo again.:cheers:
 
They're not at all deciding what WWW sites you can look at, nor is there any threat of it.

There's what's called "premium" bandwidth. Big companies like Yahoo! and Microsoft pay companies like Akamai for this premium bandwidth. What Akamai does is put tens of thousands of servers at every possible location they can (carriers working together!), at ISPs (Comcast, etc.), at hosting companies like where S2's servers are, etc. When you actually hit for a M$ page, they can choose which server you're talking to and they choose based upon which one is closest to you and has the best connectivity (available bandwidth, shortest path).

There's also something called scheduling. Your computer uses it so your WWW pages load fast even if you're doing a huge download at the same time. The software recognizes that the video stream you're getting from YouTube needs to be on time and now while your file downloading at the same time can finish a few seconds/minutes later without harming the file.

This is called QoS (Quality of Service), and the intelligent routing of packets to achieve it is done by your computer and by the routers and servers at the hosting locations.

This is what they're talking about regulating.

And I know this stuff inside/out and I'm not worried in the least.

I'd be more afraid of the govt. taxing end users' internet in certain ways. If you had to pay $.10 per WWW page you loaded, you might be really stingy about what sites you chose to spend your $.10 at.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top