Net Neutrality: Republican's Invisible Hands Rubs One Out for ISP's

[engagequadlasr]

From here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_824917.html

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday moved to block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing new rules that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic on their networks.

Republicans argue that the net neutrality rules amount to onerous and unnecessary regulations that will discourage phone and cable companies from continuing to upgrade their broadband networks by making it too hard for them to earn a healthy return on those investments. They also maintain that the FCC overstepped its authority in adopting the rules.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., the sponsor of the spending bill amendment and chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, said his measure is "about keeping the government out of the business of running the Internet."

Seriously, how maliciously disingenous do you have to be to claim that the net neutrality rules, which have already been in effect during the explosive growth of the Internet, represent an onerous burden?

Oh wait, that's right. Republicans. Standard political techinique of calling something the exact opposite of what it is. Death Tax, Patriot Act, etc.

Can't wait until this is a reality.

[Funeralfog]

and there went the brain i thought you had. and you had me at internet porn


Keep this civil and on topic you two. ~ V

[engagequadlasr]

and there went the brain i thought you had. and you had me at internet porn

I tried to come up with something witty, but no-content masturbatory posts are par for the course for you.

[unicron7]

This is BULL*HIT. They ever do some stuff like this, I'll pull the plug. Broadband prices are already ridiculous enough as it is. But charging for access to certain websites we use every day, and have been since the birth of the internet? No way. Greed at it's finest being shown. This is as idiotic as Live. A service with a needless fee that is being used over bandwidth that you are already paying for.

[engagequadlasr]

This is BULL*HIT. They ever do some stuff like this, I'll pull the plug. Broadband prices are already ridiculous enough as it is. But charging for access to certain websites we use every day, and have been since the birth of the internet? No way. Greed at it's finest being shown. This is as idiotic as Live. A service with a needless fee that is being used over bandwidth that you are already paying for.

You better believe ISP's are salivating and furiously masturbating at the prospect of it. Comcast in particular I believe is making all the moves in the background to transition to this model as soon as they're no longer forced not to. Unfortunately with politicians basically taking the stance that 'whatever's good for business is automatically good for America', I say enjoy the internet in its current state. Might not be this way for much longer.

[keefy]

How will it work for non US people accessing US websites?

[engagequadlasr]

how will it work for non us people accessing us websites?

ding ding ding.

Think about that in conjunction with the fact that the US has refused to relinquish control of ICANN.

[-Kwesnoth-]

To be honest this would not even effect me that much. The only sites there that I use are Hulu, and Youtube.

[Rapture]

Didn't their mothers teach them not to be greedy little pricks?

[weskurtz81]

Some of you guys would make an OUTSTANDING Liberal version of Glenn Beck.... seriously!

What I getting so far is "Bla bla bla.... Republican's are doing X so I support Y..... bla bla bla".

Seriously, you guys do KNOW that this net neutrality legislation was drafted by lobbyists for AT&T and Verizon, and likely a couple others. You think they are lobbying for rules that will hurt them? The rules were no good! Go do some damned reading from some place other than your typical "We hate conservatives, everything they do is based on greed and hate" websites. Seriously, the Huffington Post?

[buzzkill1970]

Absent of government regulation, the free-market, and competition will determine quality of service and how much you pay*. This is largely how the Internet has operated since it's creation (TY Al Gore) up to this point, and everyone seems pretty happy with it. Anyone that thinks that more government regulation, in any form, is going to make the Internet "better" is eff'ed in the head. Any ISP that adopts an ala-catre pricing scheme will fold faster than... well (insert you favorite political metaphor here).... that is of course, unless said regulations force all IPS's to do so, in which case it'll be us, the consumer who gets it. We all know what it is, don't we? Do we want the Internet to turn into anything and everything else the government has ever meddled with?


* Once upon a time, back in the long long ago, before the rise of progressive politics and liberalism (in the US), this is how medical care functioned. People simply went to the doctor and paid for it without much muss or fuss. There were no massive "well intentioned" government regulations or massive entitlement programs to skew the free-market. Things were better back then.

Seriously, the Huffington Post?

This may well be my new sig...

[Firefox]

@weskurtz81 You know I am a neutral when it comes to American politics since it doesn't "really" concern me.. but most Republican representatives I have heard from are against Net Neutrality... so unless you really show that there is a significant amount who are rallying for it (ie. Like the NDP here in Canada who are very pro-consumer) then you really can't argue against the title.

@buzzkill1970 Your post makes no sense and I know because of the duopoly here in Canada... you have no idea how important regulation of ISP/telcos are especially in Canada to prevent Consumers from being screwed since we really wouldn't have much of a choice if Rogers/Bell suddenly decided to make internet at least $100/month for all their customers and anyone who leases their lines. And I understand in America.. there are major players as well.

Recently the major players wanted usage based billing, until the government stopped them. If it weren't for our representatives (of various parties) voicing their concerns then we would be stuck with usage based billing making bandwidth intensive services like Netflix useless.. and we wouldn't have any other choice.

[Tutankhamun]

It's a horrible thing, they call it net neutrality but it's the opposite if someone suggested this in Sweden I'd start a revolution keep the politicians away from the Internet.

[weskurtz81]

@weskurtz81 You know I am a neutral when it comes to American politics since it doesn't "really" concern me.. but most Republican representatives I have heard from are against Net Neutrality... so unless you really show that there is a significant amount who are rallying for it (ie. Like the NDP here in Canada who are very pro-consumer) then you really can't argue against the title.

Yeah, actually I can, both parties were largely against it prior to this session of Congress, there is a political game being played now, which is why the Democrats are all of the sudden all FOR THIS version of the net neutrality bill.

This nonsense they were proposing, after it had been combed over by many different people, was found to have MANY holes in it and by in large shouldn't have been supported. The bill was no good.

[Firefox]

What holes are there could you elaborate? I really dislike it when people make the excuse of "intentions" for Net Neutrality (people did that here when the Liberals and Conservatives supported the calls against UBB here in Canada) If politicians want to bring forward an agenda for Net Neutrality, I don't care if they are doing it for sympathy or votes, or because they hate the other party, it's a good thing they are supporting it.

A group of Senate democrats (Kerry/Franken included) have written a letter in favor of Net Neutrality, and though it doesn't concern me, if I were American I would not question the Democrats and would only write letters demanding that they push their agenda for Net Neutrality even further. (Letters and Petitions made a HUGE difference here in Canada against UBB and the political parties finally woke up)

It's time for Americans to write letters and demand Net Neutrality just as Canadians did against UBB.



From the headlines I've read for the last 6 years or so the majority of the time, democrats have at number to enshrine Net Neutrality regulations via the house with other tech companies like Google supporting them for many many years now. And Obama many times has said he is a big believer in it and was never against it so to a Canadian like me it seems like the Republicans aren't moving forward on the issue.

Is there a time where Republicans pushed for Net Neutrality with a bill even once? Unless you can point to that well the title still stands true.

[weskurtz81]

Some of what was recently debated which is why I am glad this measure did not get passed.

For one, these rules that were put in place are outside of the authority of the FCC and will not stand up in court. That's one HUGE problem with this.

Then, there are many things that were carved out of the net-neutrality rules and made exempt, a few of which are mobile broadband, VPN's, caching, peering, voice and video over IP, and much more. Seriously, how the hell is this "neutral"?

The problem WE have in the US is a lack of competition in many areas, and this does NOTHING to fix that, NOTHING. If consumers had choice, they would be able to choose and the market would drive the industry where it wants it. Right now, that's not the case, consumers have very little choice when it comes to broadband service providers, and this measure doesn't address that.

Seriously though, I am not going to do all the research for you guys on this, just go digging around at WHAT exactly those that are against it are actually against, you might be surprised that it's not just "big evil Republican's that are out to hold down consumers" or whatever it is you guys are thinking here.

And, just because someone posts some BS from the Huffington post and makes some stupid title to a thread doesn't mean it "stands true", it's just biased partisan FUD and I don't need to waste my time doing all the research for everyone on this topic. You guys are going to believe what you want to, and that's fine.

Edit: Also, what exactly have ISP's done that have created a need to this regulation? What existing problem is this fixing?

[Firefox]

We have a duopoly here in Canada.. and that is why we need Net Neutrality more than ever.

I don't know why you accuse me of being partisan and only wanting to believe what I want to believe. Forgive me for being passionate about a topic like this especially when Canadians get the worst of it with our Duopoly here.

About your point about "outside of the authority of the FCC: I am curious..has there been no progress for reclassification? (see article)

What a difference a day makes. Earlier this week the net neutrality troops were wringing their hands at reports that the Federal Communications Commission planned to throw in the towel on the Open Internet—abandoning any effort to reclassify ISPs as common carriers, following a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.
But now it's all smiles in response to Wall Street Journal and Washington Post stories indicating that, quite the contrary, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski plans to take something like that route.


Here's part of Amy Schatz at the Journal's dispatch, which says that FCC staff are prepping Commissioners "on how they will propose to regulate Internet lines under rules that were written for traditional phone networks. Some of those rules won't be applied to Internet networks, FCC officials say, but others will be used to enforce net neutrality, or regulations that require Internet providers to treat traffic equally and not slow or block websites."


And Cecelia Kang at the Post has her own sources, who say Genachowski plans to take a "'third way' approach between a weak Title I and a needlessly burdensome Title II approach."



Those are Titles I and II of the Communications Act, for civilians. Title I includes a definition of ISPs as "information services." Title II classifies phone companies as common carriers. The target of this regulation would be ISPs, said the Post source. But they would enjoy "broad upfront forbearance and meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach."



So what does all this mean? It might mean that the FCC plans to retain classification of ISPs as "information services," as they are now, but add some of the non-discrimination language contained in Title II to the mix.



The forebearance business might mean that ISPs could petition for regulatory relief on this front if they could prove the existence of sufficient competition in their area. That's what the big telcos get when it comes to line sharing.
All viable options

But why, you are doubtless wondering, did the agency earlier leak sources suggesting that they were pulling out of the net neutrality game altogether? It might have been a trial balloon. If so, several members of Congress pointedly shot it down today with a letter to the agency urging the FCC to keep the faith.



"We believe that it is essential for the Commission to have oversight over these aspects of broadband policy, because they are vitally important to consumers and our growing digital economy. For this reason, in the near term, we want the agency to use all of its existing authority to protect consumers and pursue the broad objectives of the National Broadband Plan," wrote Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Senator David Rockefeller (D-WV).



"To accomplish these objectives, the Commission should consider all viable options. This includes a change in classification, provided that doing so entails a light regulatory touch, with appropriate use of forbearance authority."

Devil in the details

Among those cautiously relieved at the latest news is Free Press, but the reform group wants to see the fine print.
"The FCC is sending a clear signal that they are backing away from the cliff," declared Josh Silver. "It appears they are charting a path toward a sensible broadband policy framework that will protect consumers and promote universal access. This is extremely welcome news. We reserve judgment, however, on whether the FCC has gone far enough to protect consumers with this new proposal."


Less happy about this development, of course, are net neutrality foes such as Randolph May of the Free State Foundation, who had Genachowski likened to a frontier wagon master in his last statement on the issue. Now he says he's waiting for details too.


"I won't believe that Genachowski's going to propose regulating Internet services like legacy telephone services until I hear him say it with my own ears," May declared. "The turn-about in Internet policy would be radical. It would be a mistake of historic proportions."
The question of whether this is actually a big turnaround has already become something of an interesting debate, with some scholars suggesting that it's only been very recently that the agency abandoned Title II as an option for ISPs.



Note senior Republican Robert M. McDowell, who has posted an interesting letter to Waxman and Rockefeller suggesting that the FCC never put ISP service under the Title II umbrella, even before its Cable Modem Order of 2002.



Expect plenty of this sort of argument over the coming months.

[weskurtz81]

We have a duopoly here in Canada.. and that is why we need Net Neutrality more than ever.

What prevents competition in Canada?

I don't know why you accuse me of being partisan and only wanting to believe what I want to believe.

Yeah, probably not fair, you aligned yourself with the OP, and he is probably the least objective person I am aware of in these forums, hence my unfair comment. I just think there are valid arguments to both sides of this debate, as there often times are, and when you agree with the OP in this case (a very different scenario than what is going on in Canada), you are saying that the "evil Republicans" are out to screw everyone.... as usual. I don't think that is the case with this situation at all, there are many legitimate concerns regarding the net neutrality rules.

About your point about "outside of the authority of the FCC: I am curious..has there been no progress for reclassification? (see article)

Not sure, can you post the link to the article?

I would prefer increased competition rather than regulation that's aimed at fixing a problem that doesn't exist yet.

[Firefox]

It was on Ars Technica. And if you think there shouldn't be regulations to protect the consumer against moves that go against Net Neutrality then I think I can't change your mind. You should understand the reasons people and organizations are rallying their respective governments around the world to embrace it.

The idea that competition will sort this all out doesn't make sense at all. (Though it would help internet rates and plans it would do little in this realm) I don't think you know the kinds of things go against Net Neutrality. Throttling P2P traffic which does occur is an example of something which goes against it.

[unicron7]

When the free market rules, the poor/consumers/employees suffer. I'm all for a mixed economy. Government regulation makes sure people aren't getting screwed, and levels the playing field. More government in business FTW. People on here seem to forget what happened before regulation. The industrial revolution was full of atrocities perpetrated towards the common man, and it's also going on in other non-regulated countries right NOW. Main examples being China/Taiwan.

Boils down to two things.
I am against the mistreatment of consumers.
I am against the mistreatment of employees.

There are certain media organizations out there right now making it sound as if workers/consumers shouldn't have rights, and corporate America shouldn't have any rules to abide by, which I feel is completely effing stupid. What's really disturbing is how many middle class and lower class Americans are eating this s*it up and taking it to heart.

[weskurtz81]

It was on Ars Technica. And if you think there shouldn't be regulations to protect the consumer against moves that go against Net Neutrality then I think I can't change your mind. You should understand the reasons people and organizations are rallying their respective governments around the world to embrace it.

I never said there shouldn't be regulations to protect consumers, not once. I completely support the anti-trust regulations, and that's what they do, protect consumers. Consumer protection is very important, but what current problem that is harmful to consumers is this bill fixing?

The idea that competition will sort this all out doesn't make sense at all. (Though it would help internet rates and plans it would do little in this realm) I don't think you know the kinds of things go against Net Neutrality. Throttling P2P traffic which does occur is an example of something which goes against it.

I am aware that they cannot throttle "legal" P2P traffic, I know a lot of what it does, but there is a lot about it that I do not support, it's far from "neutral" as the name of the rules suggests.

[Firefox]

Wasn't referring to the bill but just the idea of what Net Neutrality represents and the fact that things that go against it don't always appear like the picture the OP put up.

[weskurtz81]

Wasn't referring to the bill but just the idea of what Net Neutrality represents and the fact that things that go against it don't always appear like the picture the OP put up.

I understand what net neutrality represents, and I am not opposed to some of the "idea" of a net neutrality, but that's NOT what this is, and I am opposed to it because it's NOT neutral.

Also, understand it's not necessarily like the OP spun it (it usually isn't), but these proposed rules are not very well thought out and they are not neutral as the name suggests.... I just cannot support them as they sit.... can't do it.

Does that mean I say it should be the wild west where it's every man for himself? Nope, never said that either, just said I do not support THESE SPECIFIC rules.

Edit: There is probably a MUCH better version of net neutrality in some other country, I would love to see it, but it's important to remember the unintended consequences of regulation and consider how important the internet is to the world.... we don't want to screw this up. There are some things that probably need to be regulated to protect consumers, but many of the problem we experience here in the US can be fixed with competition. If consumers are free to take their dollars where they want, companies will be forced to be much more competitive, and if consumers don't like a business model one company is using, that business model will not survive.

[vegan_mekey]

I have satellite internet and it sucks.

[buzzkill1970]

Blah, blah, blah...

Boils down to two things.
I am against the mistreatment of consumers.
I am against the mistreatment of employees.
I totally support the government screwing over American citizens, so long as these citizens are business owners/employers.

There are certain media organizations out there right now making it sound as if workers/consumers shouldn't have rights, and corporate America shouldn't have any rules to abide by, which I feel is completely effing stupid. What's really disturbing is how many middle class and lower class Americans are eating this s*it up and taking it to heart.

In all honesty, I did edit your quote a little.

I am against the mistreatment of consumers.
I am against the mistreatment of employees.
I therefore support individual freedom. No one is forced to be a consumer of any particular item (unless forced by the government). No one is forced to work for any particular employer (yet). Here in the United States of America, personal freedom solves these problems far better than any government regulation can.

The most important "right" any employee or consumer is to walk. Employees and consumers have the "right" to walk away from a bad situation or any situation in which they feel that they are getting screwed. You CANNOT walk away from government regulation. You are bound by it involuntarily whether you like it or not. It IS a net loss of freedom.

There are certain forum participants out there right now making it sound as if workers/consumers don't have any rights, and corporate America has absolutely no rules to abide by, and have only one means of benefit themselves... by mercilessly screwing over the consumer, which I feel is completely effing stupid. What's really disturbing is how someone who has lived in the United States is eating this s*it up and taking it to heart.

No one has yet to reply to this question (courtesy of weskurtz81) "What problem with the Internet or ISP's does this legislation actually fix (or even attempt to fix)?"