FTC Against Net Neutrality - This is Getting Scary
29.06.07 @ 10:21 amThis issue is somewhat off topic for this site, but it is too important not to bring up. There are more and more signs that Net Neutrality is losing support in US governmental circles. Recently, there has been a very good discussion on this blog about free speech - specifically on the internet. Net Neutrality would ensure that free speech and access to information would be safeguarded for all users (at least in the US). Without Net Neutrality, large telecoms could essentially decide what users can and cannot view - the consequences of this are potentially crippling.
This video explains the whole topic much more eloquently:
I honestly thought that the clamour made by the public would stifle any movement to stamp out Net Neutrality - it seems that I was wrong. Recent events, including the FTC’s decision to not support Net Neutrality as well as little to no support in Congress on the topic have caused reasons for alarm. It looks as though the current administration and legislation are more than happy to cater to the large telecoms than the overwhelming majority of the public. I highly suggest that you all email/call your representative about this issue to pressure them to support Net Neutrality. That being said, I think we will need to do more than rely on an administration that is out of touch and a congress that is not living up to its promises…
From my perspective, we users and (especially) web publishers are going to have to make individual changes in order to create an impact. I am going to be dropping my AT&T DSL service and purchasing my internet service from a provider that will support a Net Neutral policy. I am also planning to do things on this site to oppose a non-Net-Neutral internet. I hope it does not have to come to that, but I think we all need to start considering what we would be willing to do to make Net Neutrality a permanent reality. blog, current events, free speech, government, governmental circles, information, internet, net neutrality, politics, telecoms web
June 29th, 2007 at 11:09 am
$0.00 in Comment Love for October
The FTC’s own paper is concise, clear and understandable. Here’s the link:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/06/broadband.shtm
One of the better analyses I’ve seen — notable for its acknowledgment of “regulatory capture”, or how regulation benefits incumbents at the expense of the public — was at Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070624-analysis-googles-net-neutrality-position-leaves-unanswered-questions.html
“Network Neutrality” achieved widespread awareness over one weekend, after Google hired Fenton Communications and MoveOn.org to mobilize their minions. They can’t clearly explain what they’re trying to do (other than banalities like “we’ll make things fair”), which is always a hallmark of manipulative legislation.
If you wish to choose an ISP which offers flat pricing regardless of use, then I’m glad you still have the option to do so. I have great qualms over centrally politicizing what should be decentralized pricing decisions, and I have even greater qualms over the proven mind-manipulators hired to publicize whatever legislation was to be driven through under that two-word moniker.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Thanks for the comments John - I must admit I vehemently disagree with you.
The interesting thing is that the author of the Ars Technica article clearly describes the negative consequences that could occur without regulation. He then states that regulation could cause problems of its own - to me that does not diminish the need for regulation, it makes it clear we have to get the regulation right.
California’s energy woes are a perfect example of how de-regulating widespread use of a utility (I would make the argument that internet access could be seen as a utility) and relying on: 1) the private companies having the consumer’s best interest as the top priorty and 2) the consumers being able to influence the market, just does not work. The very fact that Net Neutrality is such a hotbed issue on the internet shows that there is strong public support for the policy.
I also have an issue with the notion that the public can just find another ISP. Sure, in San Francisco that should not be a problem, but many of my family living in different suburban areas have one choice for internet, sometimes two. Guess which companies those are? I can assure you, it is not the small/local DSL provider that would be much less inclined to not support a Net Neutral policy. The FCC says that the market is becoming more competitive, I would love to see numbers on this.
To me, this is slightly akin to complaining that enforcing free speech will cause nothing but red tape and if people really wanted to express themselves, they should be willing to fish around for the places where they can. If we believe that citizens have the right to any and all data on the internet, we should enforce that. ‘Because it’s hard’ is not a valid reason to avoid such actions.
June 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
$0.00 in Comment Love for October
“California’s energy woes are a perfect example of how de-regulating widespread use of a utility…. “
That’s partial deregulation. Nuclear energy is still under Prohibition, for instance, and bird-mangling windpower cannot be built willy-nilly… you and I are defined by law as consumers, and we can’t produce energy (solar panels, eg) for sale into the grid. Partial dereg also happened when the USSR split, and the Mafia ended up with the power… also happened when airlines lost their legislative cushion but air hubs did not. Pushy centralized distortions tend to breed other pushy centralized distortions, and removing one encrusted layer of dysfunctionality doesn’t make it “deregulated”.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
And you’re suggesting that the telecommunication industry is not centralized? I get the feeling that you think regulation causes all these problems where the current system alleviates them. Regulation will cause issues, of course, but a intelligent system for regulation would net out better than letting the few telecoms that essentially run everything choose what we get to access.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
$0.00 in Comment Love for October
I’m with John - “net neutrality” has nothing to do with Comcast “censoring” your web access.
The real problem is net neutrality doesn’t really mean what people think it means.
It’s not about keeping access to Every Website available - this should be obvious, because there’s no problem with such “censorship” anyway, so why would anyone push a Drastic Need To Prevent That Happening?
NN laws’ only serious effect, and the thing that Google supports them for, is prohibiting an extra charge for enhanced QoS service.
Google doesn’t like it because it undercuts their competitive advantage over everyone with less bandwidth and fewer servers than Google.
Net Neutrality (as a serious legislative issue and as a reason for Google to push it) has nothing to do with “the right to any and all data on the internet”; such a right doesn’t strictly exist, but it’s also in no danger at all.
To clarify: Nobody really cares about the parts of Snowe-Dorgan apart from the part that amends 47 USC 151etc to include Section 12 (a) (5), which prohibits charging for QoS.
(Section 1 bothers ISPs only in relation to section 5; letting other people use VoIP on your net rather than your own solution isn’t as much of a problem if only yours gets QoS - but if you have to give the other guy “free” QoS to compete with you without paying for the extra costs of providing it to him? Well, screw VoIP at all, it’s not worth the cost.
Nobody is attempting to “censor” access to websites and protocols that Section 1 would stop them from censoring, to speak of - I would, in fact, suspect smaller ISPs of being more likely to do so than larger ones - they’re more likely to be run by ideologues and less likely to have a legal staff to remind them of their fiduciary duty. The guys at Comcast want you to not switch to Verizon FIOS or a DSL provider, and vice versa. They don’t give a fig about keeping you from seeing any website you want.
It’s a non-problem, and thus the hysteria over “needing to fix it right now or Democracy is in trouble” mystifies me, as it has for the past year and a half.)
June 29th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Sigivald - I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I think we can look at big oil as a perfect example of that there is no competition in an oligopoly - they just all provide the same service that is detrimental to the consumer. What is the public going to do about it - not buy gas?
Also, you can censor without actually blocking. If you make certain sites so slow that it is unbearable to browse through them, you have essentially created a huge barrier for the public to access it. How is this not a problem?
Just because companies are not doing something now does not mean that this is a tremendouslyt dangerous loophole that could (and, to varying degrees, most likely will) be exploited. Once again, if we believe that equal, free access to information on the internet is important, why would be wait for companies to start infringing upon our rights before we actually do something about it? Doesn’t that seem counter-intuitive?
June 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I just want to reiterate how much I appreciate the comments and the discussion that has evolved through them. Thanks again you two.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:19 am
$0.00 in Comment Love for October
There is a broad spectrum of possibilities between “censoring the internet” and “everyone’s packets are equal on the internet”. Rosa Parks wasn’t told she couldn’t get on the bus, she was told she had to sit in the back of the bus.
Google is a business. They planned for success, and were met with success. Part of that plan was cobbling together an insane number of servers over time and paying for big fat pipes to The Internets. Not ony could others do that today, but it would be a heck of a lot cheaper given the lower cost of screaming fast hardware today. There was no unfair advantage, no payoffs or corruption (AFAIK), nothing behind the scene.
The decisions on what content will get preferential treatment in the name of QoS will, most assuredly, happen behind closed doors by men passing money to each other under the table. It cannot be any other way. That will be a real barrier to competition, not Google happening to be at the right place at the right time with the right vision.
As far as public choice, we are a long way off from the majority of American having a choice of internet providors (if you discount dialup).
July 1st, 2007 at 7:18 am
$0.00 in Comment Love for October
It’s alarming indeed. Packets on the internet should be treated equal. People should pay for how fast they can access to the internet. But once on it, it shouldn’t matter if I visit Google, msn or yahoo. Shop A, B or C.