Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The chairman of the US's communications watchdog is proposing "strong" protections to ensure the principles of net neutrality are upheld.
In an article in Wired, Tom Wheeler said he intended to place new restrictions on how fixed line and mobile broadband providers handle data.
He plans to prevent the service providers from being able to create fast lanes for those willing to pay.
Verizon has indicated that it might begin legal action as a consequence.
Setting out his vision, Mr Wheeler described it as the "strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC".
The principle of net neutrality is one that holds that all packets of data, whether it be an email, a webpage or a video, are treated equally on the network.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler FCC chairman Tom Wheeler intends to reclassify internet service providers as public utilities
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said he intended to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) to make them like any other public utility, in order to ensure the watchdog can regulate them.
"These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritisation, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services," he wrote.
"I propose to fully apply - for the first time ever - those bright-line rules to mobile broadband.
Twitter Tom Wheeler tweeted details about his decision
"My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission."
This will mean far heavier regulation for both fixed line and wireless providers and will give the FCC the power to stop ISPs from blocking traffic from services which rival their own, or from setting up fast lanes for those internet companies prepared to pay.
In a statement to the BBC ahead of the announcement, Verizon refused to be drawn on the debate.
"We have not publicly stated, nor do we intend to speculate, as to what we may or may not do regarding an order that we have not seen and has not yet been approved," it said.
But, in a blog post written a few months ago, entitled Diminishing the Prospects of Further Net Neutrality Litigation, the ISP explained the likely course for it and other ISPs if the FCC did reclassify internet access.
"The ISPs, and perhaps some in the tech industry, will have no choice but to fight the sudden reversal of two decades of settled law," it wrote.
ISPs have long argued that, in a data-hungry world, there needs to be some kind of traffic prioritisation.
They point out that bandwidth heavy services such as Netflix are putting disproportionate strain on their networks and forcing them to invest billions in infrastructure. Such services, they argue, should share the costs of maintaining the network.
Obama intervention
Barack Obama Some believe the FCC's chief only made a U-turn because President Obama had intervened
Verizon kickstarted the current debate about net neutrality when it challenged the FCC's net neutrality rules in January 2014.
A court found in its favour, meaning Verizon could start charging content providers such as Netflix to carry its content through its pipes. It also meant that the FCC had to reassess its rules.
It immediately had two lobby groups putting pressure on it.
Advocates of a free and open internet insisted that net neutrality was one of the fundamental tenets of the internet - it had been built for everybody and it should remain as easy for a small start-up as for a big multi-national to access people via the network, they argued.
ISPs, on the other hand, argued that some sort of traffic prioritisation was necessary in the complex data-hungry world we now live in. Doing so did not damage commitment to an open internet, they contended.
Initially it seemed that the regulator was leaning on the side of the ISPs and favouring some sort of two-tiered internet but protests outside its headquarters, intense lobbying from the tech industry and the eventual intervention of President Obama, appear to have changed its mind.
In November the president waded into the row and called on the FCC to enact "the strongest possible rules" to protect an open internet.
Web founder
Racing lanes Sir Tim-Berners Lee argues that when he created the web it had no special fast lanes
The debate about net neutrality is not just confined to the US.
In Europe some countries, such as the Netherlands, have already enshrined the principle in law.
Web pioneer Sir Tim Berners-Lee called for the rest of Europe to follow suit in a guest blog on the European Commission's website, written this week.
The inventor of the world wide web said that maintaining net neutrality was "critical for the future of the web and the future of human rights, innovation and progress in Europe".
"When I designed the web, I deliberately built it as a neutral, creative and collaborative space," he added.
He cited research commissioned by the Dutch government which suggested that net neutrality "stimulates a virtuous circle between more competition, lower prices, higher connectivity and greater innovation".
The European Union is due to discuss the issue of net neutrality in March.
In the US, the changes also have some way to go before they become law.
The five FCC commissioners will vote on the proposal on 26 February.
Meanwhile some reports suggest that a group of Republicans in Congress are already working on a bill to undermine the proposals.
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
I'm pretty happy to see that this has happened. I hope it actually works out.
Verizon has indicated that it might begin legal action as a consequence.
Verizon can suck my shlong. *flips Verizon the bird*
"The ISPs, and perhaps some in the tech industry, will have no choice but to fight the sudden reversal of two decades of settled law," it wrote.
And this is just laughable coming from the people trying to cause a sudden reversal of two decades of settled law.
Meanwhile some reports suggest that a group of Republicans in Congress are already working on a bill to undermine the proposals.
In all honesty, an Anti-NN stance is pretty much the sure ticket to get me to vote Dem for the rest of forever. I can put up with a lot of Rep BS to back the general stances I tend to prefer, but that's BS I just can't abide.
For once, HBMC is absolutely correct. This is good for everyone, and enhances the basic tenets of capitalism.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote: For once, HBMC is absolutely correct. This is good for everyone, and enhances the basic tenets of capitalism.
B-but m-my Comcast corporation. This is persecution! A company would never do unethical things to favor some things over others in an extremely manipulative way.
whembly wrote: I'd rather they create new regulations than to reclassify ISPs as Title II.
I'm more concerned how incestuous ISP + Content owners are... (ie, Comast owning NBC/Hulu/etc...)
From the stuff I've read, and I may be wrong I'm not up on US politics beyond laughing at the Daily Show to take my mind off how terrible UK politics are, they need to reclassify broadband as a utility because that gives them powers which would stand against a legal challenge by the ISPs(which they would/will mount regardless what solution the government went for), whereas without reclassification that's not guaranteed. Besides which, would a "normal" regulatory regime not have to originate in and pass through Congress, ie is effectively impossible given the generally anti-regulation stance of many Republicans backed up by their corporatist friends in both parties?
Also, shouldn't the additional powers to monitor and regulate anti-consumer behaviour that come with reclassification allow the government to combat such incestuous relationships more easily? Not that they'll be able to prevent them entirely of course, even if you guys win the battle for NN the lobbyist brigade aren't going to pack up and head home, alas.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
whembly wrote: I'd rather they create new regulations than to reclassify ISPs as Title II.
I'm more concerned how incestuous ISP + Content owners are... (ie, Comast owning NBC/Hulu/etc...)
I'm far more concerned that ISPs have become a de facto monopoly in many areas, even pressuring local governments to ban municipal broadband. The blatant and unprosecuted business collusion between these companies is grotesque.
whembly wrote: I'd rather they create new regulations than to reclassify ISPs as Title II.
I'm more concerned how incestuous ISP + Content owners are... (ie, Comast owning NBC/Hulu/etc...)
From the stuff I've read, and I may be wrong I'm not up on US politics beyond laughing at the Daily Show to take my mind off how terrible UK politics are, they need to reclassify broadband as a utility because that gives them powers which would stand against a legal challenge by the ISPs(which they would/will mount regardless what solution the government went for), whereas without reclassification that's not guaranteed.
Eh... here's the problem with NN. There are waaaaaaay too many people using the term for completely different definitions.
However, to me... F.R.A.N.D. is the only answer, and I wished that concept/terminology is used more prevalently. Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory access to customer-facing networks. I would be open to just about any method that would achieve this... but while Title II was designed for this for power-grids, and can achieve this... but it would be extremely awkward and that the industry would have to adapt massively. The unintended consequences can be ginormous.
Besides which, would a "normal" regulatory regime not have to originate in and pass through Congress, ie is effectively impossible given the generally anti-regulation stance of many Republicans backed up by their corporatist friends in both parties?
Not necessarily... that's how executive regulatory boards work. They're empowered by congress to issue regulatory rules within certain parameters. See EPA, DHS, HHS, etc...
Congress can override regulations, but it takes an active of legislation to overturn/adjust regulations. That takes time...
Also, shouldn't the additional powers to monitor and regulate anti-consumer behaviour that come with reclassification allow the government to combat such incestuous relationships more easily? Not that they'll be able to prevent them entirely of course, even if you guys win the battle for NN the lobbyist brigade aren't going to pack up and head home, alas.
With Title II... maybe... it's not as clear cut becaust Title II was made for a completely different industry.
Regardless, I'd be very surprise if this comes to fruitation... and we'd may see some sort of compromise instead. A Title II regulation meant for ISPs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/06 16:37:42
Melissia wrote: For once, HBMC is absolutely correct. This is good for everyone, and enhances the basic tenets of capitalism.
B-but m-my Comcast corporation. This is persecution! A company would never do unethical things to favor some things over others in an extremely manipulative way.
Heh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/06 16:46:39
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I dont know what its like in the States but can I play devils advocate for the ISPs.
If bandwith is flooding their networks and hence they have to infrastructurally upgrade them which is a cost to them they have 3 options:
1. charge the big data users such as Netflix an extra fee which is either passed onto consumers via netflix et al (as has happened) or not
2. charge more for their basic packages, again a consumer cost
3. pull out of the network altogether, leaving a hole that probably wont be filled due to the high costs/expertise involved.
I dont back the ISPs by the way, from reading what goes on in certain areas of the States they have become laws unto themselves really but anyone want to comment on the costs angle and how they can deal with it?
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
Ratius wrote: I dont know what its like in the States but can I play devils advocate for the ISPs.
If bandwith is flooding their networks and hence they have to infrastructurally upgrade them which is a cost to them they have 3 options:
In the US, much of the broadband development of the country is subsidized (if not paid for entirely) by state and local governments. The federal government also supplies funding in accordance with NTIA.
Time Warner Cable runs it's broadband at a 97% profit margin. They don't spend money and expand service because there is next to no competition; the companies only rarely operate fully in the same area.
It's shameful how long it's been allowed to continue. It's is about as shining an example of collusion as you could possibly find.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Last I checked the US had some of the worst speeds of the industrialized world at some of the highest costs. Hopefully this will correct that.
If you've ever seen the John Oliver bit, I believe we rank below Estonia. (Who if you read about, is actually one of the more advanced European countries in terms of internet, but still.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/06 17:22:06
I see, I wasnt aware of that, cheers.
So State and Local build the actual networks and then large ISPs simply own them and the rights to them charging high costs to consumers?
Do I have that right?
That is pretty depressing to be honest.
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
Ratius wrote: 1. charge the big data users such as Netflix an extra fee which is either passed onto consumers via netflix et al (as has happened) or not
Services like Netflix are already paying for the extra bandwidth they use. If you've ever gone and rented a server or webspace, you may notice that many providers place limits on upload and download, and having more costs more. These companies are already being charged for using more of the internet infrastructure. They need to buy extra connections, more accessibility, more servers, etc to function.
You can't just plug one modem into the wall and get millions of MB in data to millions of users. You need dozens of them. Hundreds. Netflix has to pay for all that extra connectivity.
This is and never has been about charging companies for how much internetz they use. It's about ISP's wanting to expand the market to include another level of service. One where they can force major market players into paying more for their connections (because if they don't then they get stuck in the slow lane). That would work great for them, but it would suck for pretty much everyone else.
And this isn't getting into the other underlying issue that the providers of internet (and cable) are now becoming owners of the companies that pay for those services. Comcast for example owns NBC now (i.e. a cable tv provider, owns one of the largest cable networks), and also owns Hulu, the most direct competitor to Netflix (I.E. a internet provider, owns a company that streams TV over the internet). Nor does it address the issue that there is no meaningful competition in the ISP market in most of the US. Most of us only have choice of 1 provider. Companies like Comcast and Verizon operate in a 0 competition environment where they can charge whatever they want because the rest of us have no choice.
2. charge more for their basic packages, again a consumer cost
People in the US already pay far more for internet service than most of the rest of the world, and we have internet speeds much lower than most of the rest of the world.
3. pull out of the network altogether, leaving a hole that probably wont be filled due to the high costs/expertise involved.
Because making 0$ in profit is better than making billions?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/06 17:34:01
We Need Net Neutrality Policy, but ‘30s Regs Aren’t the Way to Do It
I like the Internet.
Cat Vids ← It brings us cat videos.
And baby photos. And memes.
It also brings education to the masses, health care to the hard to reach, and drives California’s economic engine.
The Internet does all these things (and more!) because it is an open platform. The principles of “Net Neutrality” (NN) and the open Internet are bedrock beliefs for innovative companies in California and around the country who are delivering the innovations and applications that power our lives.
More than a decade after NN was defined, it’s back on the front burner with everyone from talk show satirists to dog walkers discussing the importance of keeping the Internet open. The issues around NN are not new. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has been struggling to create a legal framework to preserve and protect these core principles of openness for a long time, and I applaud FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler’s recent efforts to craft a sensible solution.
I’m convinced that a common sense solution exists, while at the same time hopeful that we’ll make sure there’s water in the pool before we dive in headfirst. I say that because I’m a little concerned about the desire by some to impose 1930s style telephone regulations on the Internet.
These old rules, also known as Title II, if you’re wondering, refer to a section of the Telecommunications Act that Congress first passed in 1934 to regulate telephone service. Not surprisingly, things are dramatically different now than they were 80 years ago, so when you take regulations drafted in the era of the rotary phone and apply them to the era of the smartphone, one has to wonder if this is a square-peg, round-hole solution.
Applying these old telephone regulations would essentially treat the Internet like a utility such as water or electricity. But when is the last time you saw innovation in your water pipe? “
If the Internet had been regulated like water or gas, I highly doubt we would have seen the advent of things like Google Fiber or connected cars,” said Jack Crawford, general partner at Velocity Venture Capital.
Eighty years ago, do you know what went through your water pipe? Water. And I bet that is what will go through it in 80 years. But do you want to guess what will flow through our broadband networks in 80 years? Do you want to guess the bandwidth requirements, the necessary speeds, or the possible services that future networks will need to support? I asked Crawford to answer the same question in the event that broadband is treated as a utility. His response:
“I don’t have a crystal ball, but in 80 years I think regulated broadband would look a lot like it does today. Let’s not veer down that path.”
Over the last three years, I have had the pleasure to work with the FCC, the CPUC, and officials at every level of government to ensure that California’s startups have a voice in the regulatory process. We may not always agree, but these governmental decision makers are working hard to create and enforce rules that will protect consumers, incentivize investment, and grow our economy. It’s the trifecta we all want.
It’s a poorly kept secret, but government moves slower than startups. And the FCC is no different. In order to make a decision on an Internet Service, it’s a 30 day comment period followed by a 30 day reply comment period — and that’s before any ruling by the Commission can even take place. Not exactly the speed of innovation. According to Avetta’s Lloyd Marino, a process such as this would have a chilling effect on innovation.
“In this business, we’re iterating on the fly, A/B testing different features and changing pricing models frequently. I don’t have the time to wait patiently for the conclusion of a regulatory process that I frankly don’t understand and can’t afford.”
As with any heavy regulatory hammer, Title II will be felt by nearly every part of the Internet ecosystem because it will regulate Internet services.That potentially means any company in the business of transporting information from one corner of the Internet to another could be regulated under these rules. That could include the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, even Snapchat — heavy-hitters who rely on the free flow of data to meet the needs of their customers.
For startups especially, extreme regulation could easily become Armageddon. Since under the rule the FCC will have the same regulatory oversight over Internet services as it does basic telephone service. That means it will approve, or not approve, any changes in Internet service, pricing, terms, conditions, and infrastructure. “Without the freedom for people to innovate without government oversight — what’s known as “permissionless innovation” — it’s doubtful the Internet would be where it is today,” said Yo Yoshida, Founder & CEO of Appallicious, a San Francisco-based civic startup operating in the open government space.
Furthermore, this might also require the payment of regulatory fees. Any company deemed to be providing a “telecommunication service” would theoretically have to contribute to the Universal Service Fund (“USF”). Who picks up this 17% tab? Probably us — consumers. Adding lines of fees and taxes to our Internet bills isn’t on my Christmas list.
In answer to these very real concerns, some supporters of reclassification state the FCC could forebear (grant exceptions) on certain parts of Title II. This, they say, would keep innovation moving. But what this perspective underestimates is the uncertainty this will inject into the sector, the onslaught of litigation such an approach would create, and the institutionalization of distinct classes of the Internet — where some companies can innovate freely and others are left to seek permission every step of the way.
In a statement by Chairman Wheeler following a recent hearing, he said, “There is ONE Internet. Not a fast internet, not a slow internet; ONE Internet.” I could not agree more with that statement. In fact, back in 2012 I wrote an op-ed about the dangers of two Internets. The United Nations was engaged in a treaty process that had the potential to create two Internets through a misguided regulatory process favored by countries such as China, Iran and Russia, and I posited that we must vigilantly fight to preserve one open Internet for all across the world.
I feel the same way nearly 18 months later and echo the words of Chairman Wheeler. We need to protect the open Internet. Saying the Internet is of great benefit and utility is like saying water is wet. It’s a universal truth.
I am delighted to see a robust conversation developing around how to best preserve what makes the Internet great. I just hope we don’t leap into a regulatory framework without really understanding what it means. We can all agree that keeping the Internet open is vital and I’m confident we’ll arrive at a practical solution in time, but we need a modern regulatory approach for modern times — not the porting of a one-size-fits all old-school solution to modern-day challenges.
Mike Montgomery is executive director of CALinnovates, a coalition advocating on behalf of California’s tech community.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/06 19:03:33
That article is pretty terrible honestly. Comparing the internet to water pipes? Really? There's a reason there's a lack of innovation in water pipes (which there actually isn't, considering the rise of smart meters in piping and all that).
What will be on those fibers in 80 years? Nothing. Because just like his craptastical water pipe analogy, in 80 years those pipes will have been replaced with newer, better pipes. Because innovation still happens, even when the government tells you have can't have 97% profit margins and virtual monopolies.