Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

AP-Sat Sep 19, 8:36 am ET

The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday.

The reports said the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announced the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The proposals would uphold a pledge Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign to support Internet neutrality and would bar companies like Verizon, Comcast or ATT&T, from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks.

Click to expand...

I don't know enough on this issue, but the story caught my interest, and it certainly sounds like a good thing.

Mmph. I don't know enough to be sure whether this is a good thing or not, but since it involves gov't I am suspicious and concerned. :mrgreen:

Anyone from the Nerd Herd with more info? We need some Geekwise here!

Goshin said:

Mmph. I don't know enough to be sure whether this is a good thing or not, but since it involves gov't I am suspicious and concerned. :mrgreen:

Anyone from the Nerd Herd with more info? We need some Geekwise here!

Click to expand...

Good term! Would CC be the herd leader?

If I am looking at it right it is basically saying internet providers shall be banned from restricting bandwidth to different websites. The idea is that the internet service customer/user is not being charged extra by the internet provider to access a certain website nor is that bandwidth being restricted to that website the individual wishes to access.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality]Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

ISP's want more control because aps can negatively effect the functioning of their servers/networks. ISP's are already fairly well protected from suits, etc. from what subscribers pass through their servers.

This seems to be a good thing in general. I would rather see something that prohibits the government from interfering with the free flow of information over the internet. I'm sure you remember recently that the executive branch was just given emergency shut down authority over certain nodes of the internet. It's entirely necessary, but man I do not like that. Too much Chavezism room.

No link.

I am in favor of net neutrality as a concept, although the specific implementation is quite important.

Net Neutrality is the concept that an ISP isn't allowed to discriminate against the source of the traffic when routing it to the consumer. The main purpose is to prevent ISPs from purposely slowing down traffic to certain sites. Comcast for example, might slow down a video site if it competed with their on-demand service. An even worse alternative would be ISPs blackmailing certain sites into paying them a fee to avoid being slowed down.

Redress said:

I don't know enough on this issue, but the story caught my interest, and it certainly sounds like a good thing.

Click to expand...

You should read the *BN* rules, before starting a thread.

rathi said:

No link.

I am in favor of net neutrality as a concept, although the specific implementation is quite important.

Net Neutrality is the concept that an ISP isn't allowed to discriminate against the source of the traffic when routing it to the consumer. The main purpose is to prevent ISPs from purposely slowing down traffic to certain sites. Comcast for example, might slow down a video site if it competed with their on-demand service. An even worse alternative would be ISPs blackmailing certain sites into paying them a fee to avoid being slowed down.

Click to expand...

Crap. Here is link: Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules - Yahoo! News Could a mod add that to my OP please.

rathi said:

No link.

I am in favor of net neutrality as a concept, although the specific implementation is quite important.

Net Neutrality is the concept that an ISP isn't allowed to discriminate against the source of the traffic when routing it to the consumer. The main purpose is to prevent ISPs from purposely slowing down traffic to certain sites. Comcast for example, might slow down a video site if it competed with their on-demand service. An even worse alternative would be ISPs blackmailing certain sites into paying them a fee to avoid being slowed down.

Click to expand...

I like the idea that if I pay for a service that provides 15-20 megabits then that is what I should get by my provider, not only that at their approved sites or only that if I am not downloading anything.

It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end. If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company. I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.

RightinNYC said:

It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end. If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company. I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.

Click to expand...

That's not really the case, otherwise I would agree with you. Cable providers have a monopoly in certain areas. If you live in x area, you have ONE cable provider. If you live in y area, you have a different cable provider. There is no choice available, at least none that I've seen. I lived in 5 different places in DC alone and had to take the cable provider that serviced the area I was living in. I had no choices. Only one provider services an area.

I see no issue with allowing cable providers to do as they wish with slowing things down, etc, as long as ALL cable providers are allowed to compete in all of the same areas. But as long as you are forced a certain provider due to what area you live in, I do agree that some amount of regulation need be in place to prevent them from doing stupid ****.

apdst said:

You should read the *BN* rules, before starting a thread.

Click to expand...

Redress breaking the BN posting rules? No damn way, not Redress.... :shock:

I don't care who ya are. That there is funny right there now. :rofl

.

TOJ said:

Redress breaking the BN posting rules? No damn way, not Redress.... :shock:

I don't care who ya are. That there is funny right there now. :rofl

.

Click to expand...

It was a minor oops in that I forgot the link, and as soon as pointed out, I provided it.

I admit, the irony of it is high though.

RightinNYC said:

It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end.

Click to expand...

I disagree. If net neutrality was effect then it would be something we wouldn't have to worry about internet companies restricting its user unfairly.

If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company.

Click to expand...

Not really an option if you only have one service provider(as pointed out by rivrrat) or all the internet service providers in your area started doing this.

I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Better safe than sorry and it will save any future headaches.

rivrrat said:

That's not really the case, otherwise I would agree with you. Cable providers have a monopoly in certain areas. If you live in x area, you have ONE cable provider. If you live in y area, you have a different cable provider. There is no choice available, at least none that I've seen. I lived in 5 different places in DC alone and had to take the cable provider that serviced the area I was living in. I had no choices. Only one provider services an area.

I see no issue with allowing cable providers to do as they wish with slowing things down, etc, as long as ALL cable providers are allowed to compete in all of the same areas. But as long as you are forced a certain provider due to what area you live in, I do agree that some amount of regulation need be in place to prevent them from doing stupid ****.

Click to expand...

I live in an area without any choice in cable provider. No cable providers provide here. Further up the road I can get cable; further down the road I can get cable. I wish I could get cable! I don't care what cable.

I can only get DSL at 1/2 Mbps. :shock:

I do have my choice of satellite provider however.

RightinNYC said:

It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end. If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company. I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.

Click to expand...

I would agree if it were that simple. I read a report several months back that stated that ALL the major ISPs were against net neutrality. It is very possible that the ISP companies could dictate everything you see and also direct you to only sponsored sites. So take for example MSN could only allow you to view MSN and MSN friendly content blocking 99.99% of whats out there.

Now with it costing billions of dollars for a competitor to lay thier own infrastructure before they can supply any nation/worldwide access to content, we may never see the net as we now know it.

ISPs hope to treat the internet much like your cable television service. The net now is similar to purchasing Cable TV service and being able to watch any and all channels that exist. They want to limit you in what you can view and charge you extra for everything else.

rivrrat said:

That's not really the case, otherwise I would agree with you. Cable providers have a monopoly in certain areas. If you live in x area, you have ONE cable provider. If you live in y area, you have a different cable provider. There is no choice available, at least none that I've seen. I lived in 5 different places in DC alone and had to take the cable provider that serviced the area I was living in. I had no choices. Only one provider services an area.

I see no issue with allowing cable providers to do as they wish with slowing things down, etc, as long as ALL cable providers are allowed to compete in all of the same areas. But as long as you are forced a certain provider due to what area you live in, I do agree that some amount of regulation need be in place to prevent them from doing stupid ****.

Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that even if there is only one cable company serving your area, you can almost always get satellite, or DSL, or even dial up if you like.

Baralis said:

I would agree if it were that simple. I read a report several months back that stated that ALL the major ISPs were against net neutrality. It is very possible that the ISP companies could dictate everything you see and also direct you to only sponsored sites. So take for example MSN could only allow you to view MSN and MSN friendly content blocking 99.99% of whats out there.

Click to expand...

Because this would be stupid and nobody would pay for it, MSN is unlike to do it.

TOJ said:

Redress breaking the BN posting rules? No damn way, not Redress.... :shock:

I don't care who ya are. That there is funny right there now. :rofl

.

Click to expand...

You would think that anyone who is so damn anal about the *BN* rules would never make a mistake like that. I mean, "how hard is it to follow the rules", right?

RightinNYC said:

It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end. If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company. I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.

Click to expand...

Ya, I tend to agree. This just isn't an issue that seems like that big of a deal to me. I've often heard net neutrality described as a "solution in search of a problem." Is there a major epidemic of ISPs restricting what websites people can go to? Not to my knowledge. In fact, when AT&T temporarily banned 4chan earlier this year, it made headlines. If this was a common practice, I doubt that would have happened.

RightinNYC said:

I'm under the impression that even if there is only one cable company serving your area, you can almost always get satellite, or DSL, or even dial up if you like.

Click to expand...

Not always, no. In some cases, yes. At my parents house for instance, you have one choice for ISP. Where I'm at now, as a second example, you have one choice for an ISP.

Still yet though, even if a satellite provider was available in addition to the cable, that's still a limited choice. I would only get satellite if it was the ONLY choice I had available. I'm pretty much on satellite now and it ****ing blows. And, dialup may not be an option at all if you actually want to DO anything while you're online. :lol:

Point being, unless there's fair access to different providers, providers should not be allowed to both monopolize a service area and then restrict that same service area. I have no issue with them doing it as long as they are competitive with each other.



Because this would be stupid and nobody would pay for it, MSN is unlike to do it.[/QUOTE]

Net neutrality is an issue that at the moment most are either unaware of, or simply do not see an issue with....at the moment. At this very time the overall consumption of bandwidth is not spread out, the fear ISP's have is that consumption will increase and spread among a larger percentage of their customers requiring them to actually invest in their infrastructure.

Now here is where we can all have a nice laugh. First, the actual cost that companies like Comcast and Time Warner pay for their internet access which they resell to consumers is minimal compared to the revenue. So their complaint is null and void there. Second, is anyone aware that we the U.S. citizens have already paid the ISPs millions to expand their infrastructure to support increased bandwidth?

I like the market, and if you are old enough you can appreciate how de-monopolizing the telcoms has benefited us the consumer (i.e. if you lived in the era of Ma Bell and "Don't touch that damn phone or else"). Problem we have in the U.S., the county that invented the whole damn internet, is that we do not have a true market. The vast majority of consumers across this county are reliant on one company to supply them with high speed access. This is actually no different than what many European nations are facing with de-regulated and de-nationalized telcoms. What concerns me is that at the core, we simply do not have any competition. I almost lost my home internet access because I had thought it was a good idea to send daily backups to my home. Since I was on the same private network, it seemed like a good idea at the time...until Comcast cut off service warning me I used too much bandwidth. My ioptions? Well, we ended up contracting with another business to share resources etc.. etc.. Fine and all, except her I am paying for a service I can not use. Get the point now about Net Neutrality?

The very real fear is that companies like Comcast will strike deals with content providers to provide preference to services they have approved (i.e. received premiums for). Take Youtube or Hule for example. Come home from work and decide you want to watch some show you missed that is available on Hulu......except it will not take the lowest priority to receive. In other words the service you pay for, the high speed you expect, is non existent.

Baralis said:

I would agree if it were that simple. I read a report several months back that stated that ALL the major ISPs were against net neutrality.

Click to expand...

If all the ISPs are against net neutrality then it is a pretty good indication that they all plan to impose some sort of additional fees for viewing additional websites or to restrict traffic to certain websites. Then that would mean there is no such thing as dumping one ISP and going to another because you do not like the fact they restrict traffic or charge fees for going to certain sites.

jamesrage said:

If all the ISPs are against net neutrality then it is a pretty good indication that they all plan to impose some sort of additional fees for viewing additional websites or to restrict traffic to certain websites. Then that would mean there is no such thing as dumping one ISP and going to another because you do not like the fact they restrict traffic or charge fees for going to certain sites.

Click to expand...

Exactly and I think this is what so many are missing. If all the major ISPs implement such a restructing of how they provide services we the consumer will have little choice.

I believe it was Time Warner that was talking about packages just this year. You pay for different tiers of service and the amounts of sites you can visit per a set rate. No more free range internet under such a system. Luckly so far it has only been talk but such talk scares me.

RightinNYC said:

It's always seemed like one of those things that people got really worked up about, but wouldn't amount to much in the end. If a cable company decides to restrict its users unfairly, people can just go to a different company. I don't see why we need to pass laws to deal with it.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of Net Neutrality. I don't like it, but I'm in favor of it.

I'd be MORE in favor of repealing the laws and regulations that have created essentially a monopoly in regards to cable companies that thus prevents true competition, which is what is requiring Net Neutrality in the first place. Essentially it is a government fix for an issue the government has in part created. While I'd rather the government just remove the first error they made, the likihood of that is far less likely than net neutrality.

In regards to broadband internet, for many people there is only one option.

For example where I am all I have the ability to have is Cox broadband. FIOS doesn't install in my building and I'm not in the correct direction for a clear satellite signal. Not to mention you don't get "real" competition when there are only even, say, two options because they realize they can do what the other guy is doing and you still have to pick between them both. Competition comes into play as you add more to the stack.

Its not like the days of Dialup when you had CompuServe, AOL, MSN, Earthlink, NetZero, along with a handful of local companies all over the place. Its generally Cable, if you're lucky FIOS, and maybe Satelite, with the later two hardly a given.

And sadly its not a big boogeyman, as instances of what people are warning against have already been done by the likes of Comcast and other cable companies both in the U.S. and abroad.

It is a step in the right direction, however I think the US would benefit much more by forceful splitting up the telecommunications who have monopolies or near monopolies in geographic areas. The problem is lack of competition in the US. Lack of competition means no incentive to expand your infrastructure and improve it. This in turn means more and more people get on the same network, and to make sure a minimum quality of service, the ISPs are forced to start throttling, blocking and restricting speeds.

So when a company starts to add "features" like port throttling, or telling you what sites are allowed and not allowed or limiting your usage via the amount of GB a month.. then it is because their infrastructure sucks and they either cant, or are unwilling to expand it to meet the demand. And since there are no alternatives.. then people are stuck with what they got.... and no dial up is not an alternative...