FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

[sttubs]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090919/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules

WASHINGTON - 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 Washington Post and New York Times 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.

The rules would apply to all ISPs, including wireless service providers.

Without strict rules ensuring Net neutrality, consumer watchdogs fear the communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as TV shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with services the ISPs offer, like cable television.

Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.

"We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy," Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at CTIA, a wireless trade group, told the Post.

 

[Flyordie]

Coming from the guy who's avatar insults Obama... :-|

 

[sttubs]

I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?

 

[pantherx12]

I agree with the FCC.


Great stuff.

 

[Hybrid_theory]

I live in Canada. But this is a good thing. Why should a service you pay say what you can or cannot view. You should be able to do whatever you want on the internet as long as it follows the law.

I can see Sttubs point, but ISPs who offer cable and sattelite should switch up there services to maybe offer it online.

 

[BlackOmega]

I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?

Why not, do you want AT&T,Comcast,etc. censoring what you can and can't watch? I sure as hell don't.
Corporations are run like dictatorships and this is when the government intervenes. As it should.

To answer your question, no I would not like the government to tell me how to run my business. But the difference between me and a large corporation is that I have ethics and morals, whereas big companies do not. Most of them will rip the shirt off of your back just to turn a profit.

Watch The Corporation. Its 3 parts that are 1 hour long each. This is a VERY good program that I think everyone should see.

 

[[Ion]]

I absolutely support the FCC on this, I think the ISPs should let you do whatever you want with the bandwidth you pay for, you are paying for it after all.

 

[cyriene]

I don't want the government telling me how to run my business either. But the difference here is that there is very little competition between ISPs here in the States. The only provider I have in my area is Comcast so I am stuck with their crappy service. ATT is supposed to be adding Uverse to my area sometime...but who knows when.
If there were actual competition between ISPs we wouldn't need this FCC ruling.

 

[sttubs]

I do agree that competition is the best thing for the customers. Yes, corporations are all about profit. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when you own a business, make money? Just because a company makes a profit, it does not make them evil. Nothing in that article mentions censorship, which I do agree that there should be no censorship.

 

[a111087]

Thank god for FCC
Hey, not everything government does is bad. FCC just saved internet for all of us!

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

God bless Obama

 

[Nick89]

I just posted the news. I don't agree with the FCC. Would you like the government telling you how to run your business?

So you support the ISP's RAPING we the people? So your saying you would like it to take 20mins to load techpowerup, google, any other site you goto? Just becasue those websites arnt bribing the provider for more bandwidth?

 

[AsRock]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090919/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules

WASHINGTON - 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 Washington Post and New York Times 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.

The rules would apply to all ISPs, including wireless service providers.

Without strict rules ensuring Net neutrality, consumer watchdogs fear the communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as TV shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with services the ISPs offer, like cable television.

Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.

"We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy," Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at CTIA, a wireless trade group, told the Post.

Then they should not say for example you have a 10Mb connection if you cannot use it. Simple to solve dont give the people hat much in the 1st place if your network cannot keep up with the demand as people get it because they want to use it not the other way around.

They can watch what i do all they like not ucked about it and when they stop me watching some thing i'l jump ISP uck'em.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I am happy, but I am also sad. I am happy because net neutrality is important. What Verizon, AT&T, etc. are doing is the equivalent to if Ford, GM, or Chrysler limited all their vehicles to a maximum speed of 55 MPH because "that's all you need."

At the same time, I am sad because Verizon, AT&T, etc. are businesses and they pay for all the infrastructure they install--it is their network, their rules.

[rant]I tend to side with net neutrality; however, because the Internet service provider's only job is to get the data to and from your residence--not to police it or otherwise discriminate against more needy users than others. Like all investments, they must diversify their clientel. Saying you're limited to x number of GB/month is too easy for them. Technology must advance at a rapid pace to keep up with demand and those limitations are artificially restricting progress (e.g. of all the Amazons, Hulus, and other net-only businesses). They shouldn't have to limit consumer's habits just because they want to line their fat wallets with another layer of protection. That's no different than the complaints sent towards all forms of insurance. ISPs are now insurance companies being allowed to discriminate, again, against the "needy" clients? Just like insurance, I see their want to do this but letting the network run at its peak isn't costing them anything more than all the overhead introduced by restricting traffic. No one's life, home, or car is on the line either so I call BS.[/rant]

The only excuse ISPs have for this practice is greed; it must stop.

Then they should not say for example you have a 10Mb connection if you cannot use it. Simple to solve dont give the people hat much in the 1st place if your network cannot keep up with the demand as people get it because they want to use it not the other way around.

They can watch what i do all they like not ucked about it and when they stop me watching some thing i'l jump ISP uck'em.

The statement you highlighted is the problem with cable and other pooled Internet services. The answer is DSL or other subscriber technologies which guarentee x amount of bandwidth all the time.

 

[sttubs]

So you support the ISP's RAPING we the people? So your saying you would like it to take 20mins to load techpowerup, google, any other site you goto?

If you don't like their terms, go elsewhere. You have the freedom to do that. If there is no other broadband source, and that is what you want then I guess you have to go with their terms.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In a lot of places, like where I live, there is no competition for phone, Internet, electric, and water services. It is anti-competitive as-is so it is important that what services are offered don't amount to extortion. I have no limit and at times, I get very frustrated with my ISP (lots of downtime) but at least I am not being told what I can and cannot do with my Internet. They got their asking price; they ought to be happy.

 

[Nick89]

I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.

 

[Hybrid_theory]

I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.

Aw muffin. Your 50mbps connections are so bad Canada just got to 10. The main reason Europe has more is because of population density. Fiber is insanely expensive to lay down and run to the home.

 

[twilyth]

I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.

Except the EU is less than half the area of the US - and that includes countries where I'm sure internet service is sub-par. But I agree that we should be making more of an effort. The way we got telephone service in every home was by giving the phone company a monopoly and letting them use their rate structure to subsidize rural installations. I don't think that is the best model but I would like to see some kind of subsidy for putting fiber in remote areas. Hell, I'm in the NYC-Philly corridor and I'm still waiting for Fios.

I do agree that competition is the best thing for the customers. Yes, corporations are all about profit. Isn't that what you're supposed to do when you own a business, make money? Just because a company makes a profit, it does not make them evil. Nothing in that article mentions censorship, which I do agree that there should be no censorship.

What do you call it when an ISP throttles a specific site? Maybe blocking Hulu doesn't target any particular political point of view, but I think it's still a form of censorship.

Letting an ISP pick and choose what they will allow or even 'favor' gives them an unfair competitive advantage. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem getting around such limitations and neither would anyone else here, but I don't think that's true for the average user. I think that it should be considered an act in restraint of trade and that therefore you shouldn't need any special regs or additional legislation, but it certainly can't hurt to have some.

 

[From_Nowhere]

Interesting to say the least.

{personal rant} Unfortunately GCI, and this local company I know of will still suck regardless. 600ms+ ping For the LOSE! {end personal rant}

 

[Wile E]

I hope it passes. ISPs in most areas are a monopoly as it already stands. they already limit how much content I can download in a month, despite me having signed up for "unlimited", I definitely do not want them limiting the speed of that content as well. Somebody has to pull the reigns on them.

 

[hat]

Bittersweet bill. ISPs would no longer be able to monitor net traffic, but the government is stepping in the (supposedly) free market. But they're doing good...

Coming from the guy who's avatar insults Obama... :-|

Yeah well, Obama is a crook, and there's no valid reason for anyone to not know it. There's been shit staked against him in the past, but nothing brings it out in broad daylight like Joe Wilson at Obama's healthcare speech. Obama claims that the proposed healthcare system would not benefit illegal citizens, yet it says right in the bill that healthcare would not be limited to permanent or temporary residents, or legal or illegal citizens.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I am happy, but I am also sad. I am happy because net neutrality is important. What Verizon, AT&T, etc. are doing is the equivalent to if Ford, GM, or Chrysler limited all their vehicles to a maximum speed of 55 MPH because "that's all you need."

At the same time, I am sad because Verizon, AT&T, etc. are businesses and they pay for all the infrastructure they install--it is their network, their rules.

[rant]I tend to side with net neutrality; however, because the Internet service provider's only job is to get the data to and from your residence--not to police it or otherwise discriminate against more needy users than others. Like all investments, they must diversify their clientel. Saying you're limited to x number of GB/month is too easy for them. Technology must advance at a rapid pace to keep up with demand and those limitations are artificially restricting progress (e.g. of all the Amazons, Hulus, and other net-only businesses). They shouldn't have to limit consumer's habits just because they want to line their fat wallets with another layer of protection. That's no different than the complaints sent towards all forms of insurance. ISPs are now insurance companies being allowed to discriminate, again, against the "needy" clients? Just like insurance, I see their want to do this but letting the network run at its peak isn't costing them anything more than all the overhead introduced by restricting traffic. No one's life, home, or car is on the line either so I call BS.[/rant]

The only excuse ISPs have for this practice is greed; it must stop.



The statement you highlighted is the problem with cable and other pooled Internet services. The answer is DSL or other subscriber technologies which guarentee x amount of bandwidth all the time.

ALL true about at&T and verizon(to a point) but who paid for the fiber optic network and the cable infrastructure...WE THE TAX PAYERS DID...So companies like comcast and time warner can kiss my ass.....This is something the FCC should have done along time ago They legally have to collect fee's to maintain the network, yet they are allowed to keep 30% of those fee's as profit WTF!!! It's for "administrative fees" how about they just take the money they make and put towards administrative fees dirty fuckin crooks...That's the problem with deregulation, business will regulate themselves, like company zoning AKA you get this county we get that county..It stops competition ,lowers cost and halts progress, yeah lower cost to the company Yet Cable Internet prices are soaring for the consumer with little increase in service...Take my internet it's gone from 39.99-79.99 that's a 100% price increase in 4 years and my connection speeds are only 40% faster(on paper in real life maybe a 8% increase), But as of yet what, I don't really have a choice for my service, I cant get comcast, but if i lived 2 streets over i could..I thought was called something......hmmmmm...like PRICE FIXING
The goods news is, If this passes Internet HD wont be far behind-(but they can't there's not enough bandwidth-REALLY but they can send QAM over the Internet just fine)so don't even go there

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I think the government needs to help the ISP's upgrade their networks to at least what Europe has. This crap we have now in the US is pathetic compared to a lot of other countries.

WE already pay for it!!!!!! But the Media companies put it in there pockets-(it's through Tax Loop holes that not only let them write off network expenses, but also lets them keep 30% for ADMINISTRATIVE FEE's....WTF)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

ALL true about at&T and verizon(to a point) but who paid for the fiber optic network and the cable infrastructure...WE THE TAX PAYERS DID...

Um? Fiber optics/cables are being installed/maintained by ISPs/telecoms.


I hate myself for saying this but I really think that a federal reserve-like system needs to be established for telecommunications (including internet) and electricity networks. That is, there are multiple private corporations that are overseen and controlled by a public board. You have multiple corporations in order to insite competition for price-effectiveness and research. It also means there is only one network covering the entire nation.

I feel it necessary for two reasons:
1) National security. The industrial backbone of the nation is dependent upon electricity. Many government agencies as well as the power system relies on the internet to transfer vital information.
2) Cost effectiveness. You don't have to look far to find two or three cellphone towers built right next each other because competing wireless providers refuse to share towers. This is wasteful in terms of materials and land. It also doens't make sense to have electrcial/telecommunications cables criss cross each other just to reach the area they cover when there should be only one set providing coverage for all.

Ultimately, the current system is full of waste; hence, the high prices and limited expansion of service. Just like the highway system, these services are essential to the economy and very costly to maintain.