FCC plans to formalize Internet rules on net neutrality draw fire

[yizuman]

http://www.guforums.com/showthread.p...590#post285590

This is good news! Let's all write to FCC in support of this so we can tell ISP giants like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T to lay off OUR Internet! Let us decide what it is we want to see!

[draggar]

There's actually a big battle going on over this. I won't mention names but people should look up their congressmen on who is siding with who - you'd be surprised with who is supporting the big businesses (COUGHCOUGHBRIBESCOUGHCOUGH). Sadly, though, the politician version of it will be called something like "Anti identity-theft and support our troops act of 2010" just so the average American sees the title and think that's what it's about (and be used by ammo during campaign season).

Businesses (and not just ISPs) want to control what is displayed over the internet which can lead to drastic consequences.

Companies would have the capabilities to block their competitors site, anti-(company) site, and sites they just don't like or allow sites that pay them - there's a lot of money to be made from this. Wed entrepreneurs have a lot to lose if the FCC isn't able to get the "net neutrality" policy passed.

But - don't think it's all neutral now. Last year the USA's government shut down a site for Europeans promoting travel to Cuba because the registrar for the domain was in the USA - net neutrality is already not there. The site was not targeted for Americans and only had travel information from major European hubs (Berlin, Heathrow, etc..).

[PepperElf]

i am wondering tho

if the government starts to control the net....
what's it really going to turn into?

on the postitive side it might mean more crackdowns on child porn

but on the bad side, it might mean that someone in government decides that all porn is against the rules (even if all participants are consenting adults)

or if someone decides "political view x" is harmful?
or if they decide that it's bad to protest the government, or an elected official, or proposed bills


i'd rather keep net neutrality and keep it pure
instead of having the government decide what we can and can't see.
I already have a mommy and a daddy

[Broomjockey]

i am wondering tho

if the government starts to control the net....
what's it really going to turn into?

I think you've not a proper idea of what Net Neutrality actually is. It has nothing to do with the government controlling it. Net Neutrality is a position that no ISP is allowed to throttle or shape traffic without it being clearly declared, and customers are given equal and free (as in unrestricted) access to any website. If the FCC doesn't do anything, then what you'll have is exactly the opposite of net neutrality, since ISPs shape and throttle different types of bandwidth usages without informing their customers, and some even go so far as to reduce speeds to competitors' websites. That doesn't sound so bad, except when you consider how interconnected companies are nowadays, since Comcast is purchasing NBCUniversal, that means they could throttle traffic heading to ABC, or CBS, or the website of any other broadcaster.

[Pedersen]

Broom is correct, but he's leaving out a few key pieces.

Companies don't just want to throttle traffic, they want to throttle traffic from people that don't directly pay them. This sounds like a great idea. After all, why should companies like SBC have to carry traffic from Google if Google doesn't pay SBC directly?

Here's the thing: Everybody already is paying for the traffic. SBC customers pay SBC to deliver traffic requested by SBC customers, regardless of where that traffic comes from. Google doesn't dump traffic onto SBC customers: SBC customers specifically request information from Google.

The SBC executives aren't happy about this. They feel that Google should pay SBC for the privilege of not having the traffic from Google slowed down. Sound familiar at all? Maybe something like "Hey, Google... That's a nice connection to our customers. Would be a real shame if something were to happen to it."

It's also double dipping: SBC pays the people they connect to to carry SBC traffic, and vice versa. Now, SBC wants to get paid by their customers for using bandwidth, and by web services for allowing SBC customers to use SBC bandwidth.

Net Neutrality is about stopping this, and stopping it cold. The rule the FCC is trying to put in place is to say to ISPs "If you want to slow down the traffic coming in and out of your network, you have to tell your customers about it. Furthermore, without solid reasons, you may not slow down one site to favor another."

The FCC isn't trying to dictate what you can and cannot see online. They are not trying to dictate what the ISPs can and cannot deliver to you online. In fact, if the ISP gets into filtering your internet connection, they can find themselves criminally liable if you do something illegal (the laws have numerous provisions which, basically, say "If you're a public service, we won't hold you liable for what your customers do with that service unless you actively try to restrict your customers. Once you do that, failure to prevent illegal activity makes you an accessory to the crime."

Please, this is one time I hope the rule from the FCC sticks. Otherwise, the internet will be grievously harmed here in the US, and possibly destroyed by the ISPs who feel they're not getting enough protection money.

Want an example of how? Consider a new web startup. They have a fantastic idea, and have just enough money to get a server up and running, and offering a service. Now, if they want all their potential customers to get the full speed experience, they have to pay each and every ISP in the country so that their traffic doesn't get slowed down. Google can afford it, maybe. But the small web startups are screwed, and won't occur as much (or maybe even at all) anymore. They won't be able to afford to keep their customers happy.

Stopping Net Neutrality is a horrifically bad idea, and I seriously question the motives and knowledge of anyone who wants to stop it. Either you don't know what Net Neutrality actually means, or you're okay with the destruction of the internet just so long as you get your cut. In either case, I've got some ugly names for you.

Oh, and in case you're wondering why I chose SBC above? They're the ones who started the whole debate. Here, go read what they say.

[lordlundar]

To summarize what Pederson put down. At current the client(whether a person viewing or a company hosting a website) pays the ISP for the bandwidth. If Net Neutrality is ended, then the client will have to pay for the bandwidth and the content. So not only will the rate of transfer matter, but what the file is will matter.

i am wondering tho

if the government starts to control the net....
what's it really going to turn into?

on the postitive side it might mean more crackdowns on child porn

but on the bad side, it might mean that someone in government decides that all porn is against the rules (even if all participants are consenting adults)

or if someone decides "political view x" is harmful?
or if they decide that it's bad to protest the government, or an elected official, or proposed bills


i'd rather keep net neutrality and keep it pure
instead of having the government decide what we can and can't see.
I already have a mommy and a daddy

This is actually the concept that anti-net neutrality wants to propagate to get people agreeing to their perspective. The idea that "Ohhh no! the big bad government is seeking control!! Run for your lives!!" There's 2 big things wrong with this idea:

1.) The FCC is probably the single most autonomous government agency going, and functions in a reactionary position when it comes to content. That said, their track record for proactive rules has worked pretty well for the general public.

2) The anti-NN groups keep saying that the government is going to control the content and stop people from accessing what they want. The catch is that all the fear stories they keep saying is going to happen with the FCC regulations is EXACTLY what they want to happen, with the only difference is that they don't get to be dictators.

All their comments are is using the "Big Government looking to control you" scare tactic to try and get their way.

[draggar]

on the postitive side it might mean more crackdowns on child porn

Child pornography sites are already illegal under US law and any of them that have their registry (the entity that controls the entire TLD / ccTLD - like .com, .net, .us), their registrar (where they register the domains like GoDaddy and Moniker), the registrant (the person who owns the domain), any DNS (domain to host pointing service) or host is in the USA you can rest assured that the site will be shut down pretty quickly - especially if they're dumb enough to use one of the large players.

but on the bad side, it might mean that someone in government decides that all porn is against the rules (even if all participants are consenting adults)

We are already at risk for this and we can easily see the results - try to find sites that promote travel in Cuba (if you're in the USA).

or if someone decides "political view x" is harmful?
or if they decide that it's bad to protest the government, or an elected official, or proposed bills

This is a double-ended question.

Protests and accusations backed up with facts and/or clearly stated opinions is one end. yet libel (statements typed / printed making accusations that have no backing whatsoever).

Saying things like "Politician A was corrupt because he was found guilty of taking bribes from the mafia back in 1980" is an opinion (corrupt) yet it is backed up with facts (the guilty ruling). This is 100% legal as long as it is accurate.

But saying "Politician B takes bribes from the mafia" could be considered libel since there may be no factual backing and is making a statement - especially if you do not have any facts to back it up. This is already illegal.

There is already censorship (or "re-directing")on the internet.
Governments can have their ISPs, hosts, registrars, and registries block "illegal" content (for the us - child pornography, illegal drugs, etc..).

Right now we're just starting to see what net neutrality will try to prevent, too. As Pederson stated companies may start to "ahem" block traffic from entities that benefit from their customers (Google is a great example) but it could also allow them to block sites completely. As an example: Say you're tired with Comcast cable modem and want to check out AT&T's DSL service. Oops, Comcast has blocked AT&T so you can't check out their site - or worse yet, show you Comcast's version of the AT&T site to make Comcast look like a better deal.

They would also be able to block any site for any reason. The ISPs could come to me and demand money to make my site visible to their customers (BTW - Google already does similar - ever notice those "sponsored results" from some searches?). So, not only would I have to pay renewal fees on my domain and hosting fees, I would have to pay each ISP an access fee. Why bother with making my websites anymore?

ISPs could also block sites that do not agree with them politically. A company who would greatly benefit from Political_Party_A being in power could easily block sites promoting Political_Party_B thus giving one sided / biased views on most sites (take a good look at the popular news sites - don't read what they're reporting but read HOW they're reporting - you'll see the same thing on a small scale).

[sld72382]

What draggar said worries me about what the ISP's might do if Net Neutrality fails.

ISP's might consider certain sites "premium content" and put them behind a filter you would have to pay to get past. This would certainly include almost all adult sites and streaming video sites (streetfire, hulu etc) but would also give the ISP's an excuse to block sites they don't like. For example, Comcast doesn't like Google so for sure they would put Google and Youtube behind the filter.

The filter might say something like (using Comcast as an example):

"Comcast has flagged this site as part of the High-Speed Premium Plan. To upgrade to Premium, please call xxx-xxx-xxxx."

When you call you find out the fee to get passed the filter is 20 bucks a month.

An exec from a major ISP was quoted as saying, "I don't see the need to complain about having to pay us to access adult sites. People pay to access HBO, and I don't see anyone complaining." The difference is: once you pay the access fee to HBO, you're done. With reputable adult sites (ie: new content and no malware) you have to pay the site to access the actual content. Why should I have to pay my ISP just to access the site's homepage?

Another thing that bothers me if the ISP's get their way is they have the right to block services or devices that they deem "revenue threatening." A good example is Comcast voice service. If Comcast gets their way they are sure to block services like Vonage and Magicjack and force people to go with their service. And if there's no competition then they're free to (you guessed it) raise prices.