60 days of Open Debate: Net Neutrality

Overheal

http://consumerist.com/5388469/heres-what-the-new-fcc-net-neutrality-rules-mean

Yesterday the FCC announced new, expanded rules enforcing net neutrality, and they've set aside the next 60 days for public debate. Get ready to hear all sorts of creative end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it arguments from opponents like AT&T. We've checked out the official document (pdf) and below we summarize the changes that are open to public discussion for the next two months.

1. Here are the current four rules announced by the FCC in 2005:

• "Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."
• "Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement."
• "Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."
• "Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers."

2. Here are the two new "principals" they announced yesterday:

• Nondiscrimination
  This sort of overlaps with the existing rules, in that it forbids providers from "favoring or disfavoring lawful content, applications, or services accessed by their subscribers, subject to reasonable network management."
• Transparency
  Providers must disclose to customers their network management policies before the customer signs up for service. Providers must also disclose their network management policies to content, application, and service providers, as well as to the FCC.

The FCC adds, "All of the principles would be subject to reasonable network management and the needs of law enforcement, public safety, and homeland and national security."

3. Finally, the FCC extended the scope of these rules and principals to cover mobile wireless broadband. Yay!
4. Here's one other thing that the FCC wants feedback on:
"Managed" or "specialized" services, such as VOIP or subscription video services, may fall into a special category since they "may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach, and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here." The FCC is looking for input on how to approach this special class of services.
Providers have and will continue to argue that the future of the Internet depends on whether or not they're allowed to shape traffic and practice general network management. What they'll probably forget to mention is that the FCC agrees with them, but doesn't agree that this means they should get a free pass to control access.
The FCC notes in yesterday's draft that the rapid growth of Internet traffic demands creative approaches to network management, but that this also provides plenty of opportunities for companies to screw over their customers to make more money. The FCC's goal, then, is to give companies room to practice network management as they deem best, but to prevent them from using that as an excuse to force specific products or web content on consumers, or to interfere with competition from other companies under the guise of network management.
And don't take it too seriously when an Internet provider warns that this will increase costs to the consumer. Every provider that's serious about making money fully intends to find ways to raise costs over time regardless; it's almost a certainty that should Net Neutrality go away tomorrow, prices wouldn't magically drop in the coming years.


How do you provide feedback?

Two ways:
1. You can leave formal comments through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System. You'll need to know the proceeding number of the proposal, which is the same as the GN Docket Number: 09-191.
2. Or for a more "town hall" style form of participation (meaning we have no idea if participating here really matters), you can visit the OpenInternet.gov IdeaScale website, which they describe as "an online platform for brainstorming and rating solutions to policy challenges."

http://consumerist.com/5385791/att-asks-employees-to-oppose-net-neutrality

A reader sent us a letter that AT&T sent to its employees asking them to tell the FCC they oppose net neutrality. This comes after the FCC announced plans to investigate and enact net neutrality rules that will ensure that internet service providers (like AT&T) treat all content equally. The letter and a rebuttal are inside. Here is the letter from AT&T:

Let your voice be heard: Internet regulation is bad for consumers, jobs, investment and universal broadband
TO: All U.S.-based managers
Over the last few weeks an extraordinary number of voices expressed concern over news reports that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to regulate the Internet in a manner that would drive up consumer prices, and burden companies like ours while exempting companies like Google. According to The Washington Post, the FCC has received a dozen letters from Republican and Democratic governors, a letter signed by 18 Republican senators, and a letter sent by 72 Democratic members of Congress. In addition, letters expressing serious concerns were sent by many state legislators and minority groups, and our union partners, CWA and the IBEW.
We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet. It can be done through a personal email account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the "Join the Discussion" link.
The FCC has extended the period for receiving comments by allowing postings to its blog until Thursday, October 22nd. Those who seek to impose extreme regulations on the network are flooding the site to influence the FCC. It's now time for you to voice your opinion!
In addition to your own thoughts, any of the following points can be used when you develop your brief blog comments.

• America's wireless consumers enjoy the broadest range of innovative services and devices, lowest prices, highest usage levels, and most choices in the world. Why disrupt a market that's working so well?
• There is fierce competition for wireless and broadband customers. Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want. There's been more innovation in this market than in any since the World Wide Web was introduced. The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations.
• Network companies have to be able to manage their networks to ensure the most economical and efficient use of bandwidth, and provide affordable broadband services for all users. Network management is essential for consumers to enjoy the benefits of new quality-sensitive applications and services. The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network.
• The "net neutrality" rules as reported will jeopardize the very goals supported by the Obama administration that every American have access to high-speed Internet services no matter where they live or their economic circumstance. That goal can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it.
• The FCC shouldn't burden an industry that is bringing jobs and investment to the country, but if it is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly. The goal of the FCC should be to maintain a level playing field by treating all competitors the same. Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines and other information services providers.

Thank you in advance for taking action that supports our customers, our company, and our country's commitment to ensure that every American has access to broadband.
Jim Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President - External and Legislative Affairs
ATT

Well, let's break that down. First off, the FCC's contemplated action would be "exempting companies like Google" because the rules are directed at the ISPs, not at the content providers. AT&T, Comcast, et al are the subject of the regulation, companies like Google, who produce the content that consumers access via the internet, aren't. You could just as easily say it would "exempt companies like Craigslist, or Gawker, or Meatspin."
In response to AT&T's offered talking points:

• "Why disrupt a market that's working so well?" The market is currently operating under net neutrality principles, albeit principles with little force of law behind them. Net neutrality has been the operating norm of the Internet since its inception; it's only recently that ISPs have discovered there's money to be made in ransoming certain content.
• "Competition drives innovation and encourages companies to develop products, services and applications that consumers want . . . . The market is working for consumers. Don't burden it with unnecessarily harmful regulations." You know what doesn't encourage companies to develop products, services, and applications that consumers want? Making them pay an ISP for the privilege of even showing their content to consumers. A great part of the internet is the low cost of entry for new ideas and products. Forcing start-ups to buy access to a customer base could kill the next big idea.
• "Network companies have to be able to manage their networks... The FCC rules should not stop the promise of life-changing, cost-saving services such as telemedicine that depend on a managed network." The FCC, which hasn't announced concrete rules yet and won't be until the completion of a lengthy factfinding process, has already indicated that in some circumstances network management may be necessary and would be allowable, provided it was done in a transparent manner. Telemedicine has in fact been used as an example where such management might be needed.
• "[Net neutrality rules would] halt private investment in broadband infrastructure. And the jobs associated with that investment will be lost at a time when the country can least afford it." First, content providers, like Google, YouTube, or Facebook, also employ people. Limiting the content that can travel through the internet would also risk losing jobs. But more importantly, there is no evidence that net neutrality would discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. Indeed, from 2006 to 2008, AT&T has had net neutrality rules imposed on it as a condition of its merger with BellSouth. As this article points out, "AT&T's network investments increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition and continued to rise over the two years of the merger agreement. When the neutrality condition expired on Dec. 29, 2008, the company sharply reduced its investment."
• "If [the FCC] is going to regulate the Internet it should do so fairly . . . . Any new rules should apply equally to network providers, search engines, and other information services providers." This is gibberish. Search engines don't transmit content; they can't, for instance, block torrent files. Only the tube owners like Comcast and AT&T can block or discriminate against content.

In conclusion, AT&T is full of it, net neutrality is awesome, and trying to stop the flow of information is usually a bad idea.

I'm very inclined to agree with the Consumerist on this matter. I could only imagine if Time Warner absorbed Hulu and Comcast absorbed Netflix and that both companies would be throttling access to eachother's services because they can. Or AT&T will slow down packets to http://msn.com in favour of http://my.att.net/

Of course, this also means these companies will fire back with download caps, and theyve been threatening this for a while now. Theyve also made good on some of those threats in oligopolized markets.

I've been keeping tabs on NN for the better part of 2 years now. Consumerist alone has 52 articles tagged with Net Neutrality: Here are the highlights.

• What is Net Neutrality?
• Why Net Neutrality is Good.
• Why Net Neutrality is Bad.
• The Bush Years: Dept. of Justice says no to Net Neutrality
• Google (GOOG) takes stance in favor of Net Neutrality
• ISPs Threaten metered service as Net Neutrality looms
• COX Blocking Craigslist
• AT&T Censors live stream of Pearl Jam concert.
• AT&T Temporarily IP Blocks 4chan for DDos attacks.

Certainly for the latter, ISPs should be allowed to do things like AT&T did to 4chan to protect the integrity of their network. But even that measure was temporary. And they should never be able to argue that Peer to Peer (P2P) protocol is a threat to their infrastructure. Its simply a protocol, like HTTP. Despite this Comcast discriminated against P2P packets for the better part of 2 years.

John McCain had this to say on Recent Events.

Senator John McCain has introduced Net Neutrality Act of 2009 as alternative to FCC regulations

Net neutrality is one of the top technology topics that President Obama has focused on for his first term and was one of his big topics while campaigning. Obama feels that the neutrality of the internet must be maintained, as does the FCC.
The FCC voted to begin drafting rules yesterday that would require ISPs to treat all web traffic the same. The proposed rules would prevent ISPs from blocking or slowing the bandwidth available to high demand traffic like streaming video or other applications that can strain networks. The proposed rules would allow ISPs to block illegal material like child pornography and spam.

Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would block the FCCs proposal for regulating the neutrality of the Internet. The AFP reports that McCain said, "the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 [will keep the internet] free from government control and regulation."

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski said, "reasonable and enforceable rules of the road [are needed] to preserve a free and open internet." Genachowski points out that these rules are needed because of "some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications."

Naturally, companies that make their money from the internet are supporting the FCC's proposal. These companies include Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and several other internet firms. McCain calls the FCC's proposal "onerous federal regulation" and calls the proposed rules a "government takeover" of the internet.

ComptuerWorld also reports that McCain does not support including wireless broadband providers in the net neutrality rules saying, "[The wireless industry] exploded over the past 20 years due to limited government regulation."

McCain said of his Internet Freedom Act of 2009, "Today I'm pleased to introduce the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 that will keep the Internet free from government control and regulation. It will allow for continued innovation that will in turn create more high-paying jobs for the millions of Americans who are out of work or seeking new employment. Keeping businesses free from oppressive regulations is the best stimulus for the current economy."

http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Moves+to+Draft+Net+Neutrality+Rules+as+Sen+McCain+Moves+to+Block/article16602c.htm

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

I've been keeping tabs on NN for the better part of 2 years now.

This would make for a grand master's thesis for you Overheal?

One problem I've run into when attempting to understand the FCC's position vs the corporations (or Obama's campaign pledge vs McCain's bill) are the lack of unvarnished FACTS. I need access to unbiased, valid and reliable data to compare positions, rather than just OPINIONS from one side or the other, which seem loaded with BIAS?

This article from Network World supports this position: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/31015

Do you have a source for unbiased data?

MeatProduct

"Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice."

Does this mean the internet as a legal entity or lawful content on the internet. I don't speak legal, can anyone knowledgable clarify please?

Nick

Overheal

They mean they would not prohibit ISPs from blocking or tracking illegal traffic, in the same manner the RIAA and others have been able to track and prosecute users for illegal filesharing.

Lawful content on the internet.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

This would make for a grand master's thesis for you Overheal?

If I were in college and not just a hobby-geek.

Do you have a source for unbiased data?

What data pools are you looking for exactly and we'll see what we can scrounge.

Overheal

Given how much the internet has gotten ingrained in Modern Culture I figured more people would be interested in this discussion

callig

I'm loving the google ads for this thread.

Overheal

Sensationalst: but this gets the point across. And its already partially true given netflix and some news sites are already subscription-only

Moriarty

Consumers are expecting more for less from ISPs these days. Avoiding the long spiel, that's an unsustainable expectation in the long term.

The "net neutrality" issue is a direct result of content providers making money at the expense of access providers. It's a more difficult square to circle than it first appears.

norbert64

It's started?

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/bentley/is-google-selling-out-with-net-neutrality-proposal/?cs=42674

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html

Overheal

It would seem so.

It was a big reason I voted him into office: I want to see how this plays out under the Obama Administration.

oscarBravo

Overheal wrote: »

And they should never be able to argue that Peer to Peer (P2P) protocol is a threat to their infrastructure. Its simply a protocol, like HTTP.

On a point of order: P2P is a class of protocols, not a protocol. Some of those protocols are fairly network-friendly, depending on the implementation (bittorrent is usually pretty well implemented), and some of them are practically DDoS techniques out of the box. Any protocol that opens thirty thousand simultaneous connections from a single IP address should be burned at the stake - not just because of the traffic management nightmare they cause for ISPs, but on general principle.

BluePlanet

Looks like the Tea Party are coming out against Net Neutrality.
Apparently they think it's an "affront to free speech and free markets".

They it seems, would rather corporations decide.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/tea-partiers-say-net-neutrality-hurts-freedom.php?ref=fpa

Overheal

Thats the most depressingly oxymoronic thing I've read in a long time.

They fail to put two and two together: The Free Market has extrememl;y limited purchasing power Already against ISPs. ISPs that have their own exclusive service territories. Depending on what city or subdivision you live in, you might only receive Comcast, or Time Warner. And they can without Net Neutrality throttle your bandwidth to make sure for example that you only have dial-up speeds to websites they don't want you visiting. Or they may just block them out completely. And those are your choices: Put up with it, Stop using the Internet, or move somewhere else where you can get another ISP.

Moriarty

But but.. obviously the reason that you dont have twelve competing service providers available for every consumer in the country is just down to burdensome regulation and big government intruding on the serenity of free market provision of utility services!

They've got all the corners covered

Carcharodon

Could someone give a brief synopsis in layman's terms what exactly all this means

Is it basically that without net neutrality my internet provider will/may downgrade the speed to certain sites forcing me to use ones that it has made agreements with.

Doesn't the US have one of the most expensive and slowest internet services compared to other countries ? Or is that a different argument ?

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U

Its pretty much exactly that. Another way to look at it though - more accurately - is QoS (Quality of Service) something most home routers can do already. I can set up my router for instance, to give top priority to traffic coming in/out of my skype/vonage internet ports. That way, if I'm torrenting something, my phone calls don't go to **** - which they normally do without QoS when I'm torrenting.

But that also works both ways. I could also - especially as an ISP - give top priority to traffic. For instance Comcast (now merged with NBC) would be able to give Hulu web traffic a priority over Netflix, Dailymotion or Youtube. Or in the case above in the video, give Skype priority traffic, and give Vonage the lowest priority of traffic: that is, any traffic whether its porn or google or porngoogle, recipe.com, or ebay, would have carte blanche more priority of web traffic than Vonage, making the service essentially worthless.

Opponents of Net Neutrality argue ISPs need to be able to control and protect their infrastructure when in fact they already can. Last year AT&T blocked all ports and access to 4chan for a day or two because it identified it as the source of a major DDoS attack. Something it was perfectly able to do, given the situation. Without Net Neutrality however, they'd be able to do this with even far less provocation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Recent_developments

The FCC has my full support on this issue.

Overheal

http://tv.gawker.com/5615417/jon-stewart-addresses-google-and-net-neutrality

Overheal

And as a new "Duh!" report documents, your advertised broadband speed? On average, users only receive under half their paid-for bandwidth:

http://consumerist.com/2010/08/up-to-broadband-speeds-are-bs-fcc-study-shows.html

PDF inside.

Overheal

Going down the emergency chute when you quit your job; Tiger Woods being assaulted by his wife, and now Net Neutrality: all things that have been taken seriously by Taiwanese animators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YncVKgpTd6E

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

Going down the emergency chute when you quit your job; Tiger Woods being assaulted by his wife, and now Net Neutrality: all things that have been taken seriously by Taiwanese animators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YncVKgpTd6E

Is that a dead body on the road at 0.14?

What's the FCC's stance exactly, looks to me like they're somewhat against NN.