Time Warner Cable just provided its broadband subscribers, including me, a free bandwidth upgrade from 15 mb/sec to 50 mb/sec. Why this largesse? My first guess was that maybe TWC is feeling the pinch from Verizon's FiOS high speed service, but now I suspect it's a political move intended to impress the FCC with TWC's generosity toward its domestic customers, to fend off new regulations to prevent preferential treatment of some Internet content providers over others, to our disadvantage. Whatever, it's time the FCC acted, and they'd better do it soon while there's still a Democrat-appointed majority that won't give away the store to the Internet service providers.
Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules
By EDWARD WYATT
NOV. 10, 2014
WASHINGTON — In his most direct effort yet to influence the debate about the Internet’s future, President Obama said on Monday that a free and open Internet was as critical to Americans’ lives as electricity and telephone service and should be regulated like those utilities to protect consumers.
The Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Obama said, needs to adopt the strictest rules possible to prevent broadband companies from blocking or intentionally slowing down legal content and from allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane to reach consumers. That approach, he said, demands thinking about both wired and wireless broadband service as a public utility.
“For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access into and out of your home or business,” Mr. Obama, who is traveling in Asia, said in a statement and a video on the White House website. “It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call or a packet of data.”
The president’s move was widely interpreted as giving political support to Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman. Mr. Wheeler is close to settling on a plan to protect an open Internet, often known as net neutrality, and Mr. Obama’s statement could push him to adopt a more aggressive approach. Any set of rules needs three votes from the five-member commission, which now has three Democrats and two Republicans.
The debate may hinge on whether Internet access is considered a necessity, like electricity, or more of an often-costly option, like cable TV.
The proposal was hailed by Internet content companies like Netflix, Democrats in Congress and consumer advocacy groups. But the leading providers of Internet access, increasingly dependent on revenue from broadband subscriptions, quickly denounced the proposal. Republicans and some investment groups also spoke out against the plan, saying the regulation was heavy-handed and would kill online investment and innovation.
The F.C.C.’s previous rules for net neutrality were struck down in January by a federal appeals court, leaving the commission in search of new rules. In May, the commission released a proposal that would maintain a light regulatory touch, which Mr. Obama said was not strong enough.
Mr. Wheeler, who was appointed by Mr. Obama, said he agreed with the president that “the Internet must remain an open platform for free expression, innovation and economic growth.” But he stopped short of promising to follow the president’s recommendation, saying more time was needed to consider options and adopt an approach that could “withstand any legal challenges it may face.”..
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/techn ... y-fcc.html
Internet regulation
Internet regulation
Last edited by John F on Tue Nov 11, 2014 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Francis
Re: Internet regulation
A Promising Approach to Internet Rules
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NOV. 8, 2014
This spring, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission proposed a plan that would have allowed broadband companies to divide the Internet into fast and slow lanes. That idea that was roundly attacked by advocacy groups like Public Knowledge and the American Civil Liberties Union, and now the chairman is reportedly considering a new approach.
Under current rules, big phone and cable companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable have the right to favor some types of Internet traffic over others. These companies could, for instance, ask Netflix and Amazon to pay extra fees to have their videos delivered to consumers ahead of content from competitors. This approach would greatly benefit large companies at the expense of smaller businesses, and would limit consumer choice and the ability of start-ups to compete on the web.
This problem is a result of the commission’s own doing. For years, legal experts have pleaded for rules that require cable and phone companies to treat all data on the Internet equally. But the F.C.C. made huge mistakes in the past decade in classifying cable and phone-based broadband services as information services, which can be only lightly regulated, as opposed to telecommunications services, which are subject to far greater controls.
Now Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, seems to be looking for a solution. He has not provided details about a new approach, but legal experts say it is based on several ideas that law professors, technology companies and public interest groups have been debating since the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January struck down the commission’s previous rules, which the court said improperly applied telecommunications regulations to broadband service. The most straightforward solution would be to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and issue rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from giving preference to some Internet content.
Broadband providers will, of course, fight reclassification tooth and nail. They say they can be trusted to treat all data fairly. But companies like Verizon and AT&T have previously said, in court hearings and public statements, that they do want to strike deals with businesses like Google to deliver their content faster to consumers.
To avoid that political battle, Mr. Wheeler and his staff appear to be considering a hybrid approach that would regulate high-speed Internet service in two parts, as described in an April letter to the commission from Tejas Narechania and Tim Wu of Columbia Law School. A broadband carrier would be providing a lightly regulated information service when a consumer uses its network to send, say, emails or requests to Netflix for movies. But when a content provider like Netflix sends data to the consumer, that transmission would be classified as a telecommunications service, subject to far stricter regulatory oversight.
This still leaves lots of unanswered questions. For example, would a hybrid approach leave consumers with fewer protections than businesses like Netflix and YouTube would have? Would exemptions from the rules be granted to broadband companies for particular services, like video gaming? And would any new rules apply to agreements like Netflix’s recent deals to pay Comcast, Verizon and AT&T to directly connect its streaming movie system to their networks?
A hybrid approach, if done right, could be promising. Ultimately, how well it would protect an open Internet and consumers would depend on the commission’s being willing to issue rules that limit the power of the broadband giants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opini ... rules.html
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NOV. 8, 2014
This spring, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission proposed a plan that would have allowed broadband companies to divide the Internet into fast and slow lanes. That idea that was roundly attacked by advocacy groups like Public Knowledge and the American Civil Liberties Union, and now the chairman is reportedly considering a new approach.
Under current rules, big phone and cable companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable have the right to favor some types of Internet traffic over others. These companies could, for instance, ask Netflix and Amazon to pay extra fees to have their videos delivered to consumers ahead of content from competitors. This approach would greatly benefit large companies at the expense of smaller businesses, and would limit consumer choice and the ability of start-ups to compete on the web.
This problem is a result of the commission’s own doing. For years, legal experts have pleaded for rules that require cable and phone companies to treat all data on the Internet equally. But the F.C.C. made huge mistakes in the past decade in classifying cable and phone-based broadband services as information services, which can be only lightly regulated, as opposed to telecommunications services, which are subject to far greater controls.
Now Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, seems to be looking for a solution. He has not provided details about a new approach, but legal experts say it is based on several ideas that law professors, technology companies and public interest groups have been debating since the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January struck down the commission’s previous rules, which the court said improperly applied telecommunications regulations to broadband service. The most straightforward solution would be to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and issue rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from giving preference to some Internet content.
Broadband providers will, of course, fight reclassification tooth and nail. They say they can be trusted to treat all data fairly. But companies like Verizon and AT&T have previously said, in court hearings and public statements, that they do want to strike deals with businesses like Google to deliver their content faster to consumers.
To avoid that political battle, Mr. Wheeler and his staff appear to be considering a hybrid approach that would regulate high-speed Internet service in two parts, as described in an April letter to the commission from Tejas Narechania and Tim Wu of Columbia Law School. A broadband carrier would be providing a lightly regulated information service when a consumer uses its network to send, say, emails or requests to Netflix for movies. But when a content provider like Netflix sends data to the consumer, that transmission would be classified as a telecommunications service, subject to far stricter regulatory oversight.
This still leaves lots of unanswered questions. For example, would a hybrid approach leave consumers with fewer protections than businesses like Netflix and YouTube would have? Would exemptions from the rules be granted to broadband companies for particular services, like video gaming? And would any new rules apply to agreements like Netflix’s recent deals to pay Comcast, Verizon and AT&T to directly connect its streaming movie system to their networks?
A hybrid approach, if done right, could be promising. Ultimately, how well it would protect an open Internet and consumers would depend on the commission’s being willing to issue rules that limit the power of the broadband giants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opini ... rules.html
John Francis
Re: Internet regulation
Obama for Net Neutrality
By Vikas Bajaj
November 10, 2014
President Obama wrote on Monday that the Federal Communications Commission should issue strong regulations to prevent cable and phone companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes.
Writing in more detail than he has offered previously on the subject, Mr. Obama said the commission, which is independent of the administration, should undo a long-standing regulatory mistake by re-classifying broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service, not a lightly-regulated information service. That would allow the commission to ban cable and phone companies from blocking, slowing down or otherwise interfering with the videos, music and other content that their customers access on the Internet.
As we wrote in an editorial on Sunday, under current rules companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable have the right to favor some content over others. For example, they could decide to deliver content from a provider that pays them a fee faster than information from competing services. Such arrangements would limit consumer choice and the ability of start-ups to compete on the Web. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama wrote.
Not surprisingly, cable and phone companies and some of their supporters in Congress are not happy with Mr. Obama’s proposal. Comcast issued a statement calling it “a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today’s immediate stock market reaction demonstrates.” (Shares of Comcast were down 3.8 percent at noon, but shares in Verizon and AT&T were up slightly.) Senator Ted Cruz tried, confusingly and desperately, to link Mr. Obama’s proposal to health reform, a favorite whipping boy of Republicans that is actually working quite well:
But other telecommunications rules should apply. For example, federal telephone regulations make sure that you can use your AT&T phone to call people using T-Mobile by requiring the companies to connect their networks to each other. The same should be true on the Internet – you should be able to use Netflix just as easily as you would be able to use Amazon’s streaming service.
This is at the heart of what Mr. Obama is proposing:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... eutrality/
By Vikas Bajaj
November 10, 2014
President Obama wrote on Monday that the Federal Communications Commission should issue strong regulations to prevent cable and phone companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes.
Writing in more detail than he has offered previously on the subject, Mr. Obama said the commission, which is independent of the administration, should undo a long-standing regulatory mistake by re-classifying broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service, not a lightly-regulated information service. That would allow the commission to ban cable and phone companies from blocking, slowing down or otherwise interfering with the videos, music and other content that their customers access on the Internet.
As we wrote in an editorial on Sunday, under current rules companies like Verizon and Time Warner Cable have the right to favor some content over others. For example, they could decide to deliver content from a provider that pays them a fee faster than information from competing services. Such arrangements would limit consumer choice and the ability of start-ups to compete on the Web. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” Mr. Obama wrote.
Not surprisingly, cable and phone companies and some of their supporters in Congress are not happy with Mr. Obama’s proposal. Comcast issued a statement calling it “a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today’s immediate stock market reaction demonstrates.” (Shares of Comcast were down 3.8 percent at noon, but shares in Verizon and AT&T were up slightly.) Senator Ted Cruz tried, confusingly and desperately, to link Mr. Obama’s proposal to health reform, a favorite whipping boy of Republicans that is actually working quite well:
The industry’s concerns are unfounded and self-interested. And the reaction of lawmakers like Mr. Cruz is partisan hyperbole. Mr. Obama made clear that he does not want the F.C.C. to regulate broadband as it regulates traditional telephone service even if it reclassifies it as a telecommunications service. For example, there is no reason for the commission to regulate the price of Internet service, as regulators do for traditional home phone lines.Senator Ted Cruz
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
10:43 AM - 10 Nov 2014
But other telecommunications rules should apply. For example, federal telephone regulations make sure that you can use your AT&T phone to call people using T-Mobile by requiring the companies to connect their networks to each other. The same should be true on the Internet – you should be able to use Netflix just as easily as you would be able to use Amazon’s streaming service.
This is at the heart of what Mr. Obama is proposing:
Mr. Obama’s reasoning might not satisfy phone and cable companies or their friends in Congress, who have a visceral allergic reaction to regulations. But that should not stop the F.C.C. from adopting his well-argued proposal.President Obama wrote:For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... eutrality/
John Francis
-
lennygoran
- Posts: 19347
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
- Location: new york city
Re: Internet regulation
These days does Washington DC ever act soon? Regards, LenJohn F wrote:they'd better do it soon while there's still a Democrat-appointed majority that won't give away the store to the Internet service providers.
Re: Internet regulation
The FCC is a regulatory agency and can vote and act tomorrow if it chooses to. Internet neutrality has been on its agenda for years, so it can hardly be accused of rushing the process.
John Francis
-
lennygoran
- Posts: 19347
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
- Location: new york city
Re: Internet regulation
Hope you're right! Regards, LenJohn F wrote:The FCC is a regulatory agency and can vote and act tomorrow if it chooses to. Internet neutrality has been on its agenda for years, so it can hardly be accused of rushing the process.
-
CharmNewton
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:10 pm
Re: Internet regulation
How is this an improvement over what we see today? Currently billions of devices connect to the Internet and its hard to imagine someone making a portable device that cannot do so. Are Time-Warner plotting to return consumers of this forum to dial-up speeds so that they can sell bandwidth to the likes of Netflix?
If the government treats the Internet like a utility, its cost will definitely go up. At some point Congress will enact taxes to cover the cost of bureaucracy on the government side while Internet providers will pass on compliance costs as well (but not to the government which will mandate exemption).
Right now, if you don't ay your bill, you lose your service. As a regulated utility, it is only a matter of time before complicated shut-off regulations are enacted, the costs of which will again be passed on to consumers.
The costs of regulatory compliance become an additional hurdle for new entrants ultimately having a restrictive effect on choice.
The cost of content on the Internet has become cheaper due to competition. The free marketplace will provide the best solution for the consumer in terms of cost and content. I see the government as a minus in this picture.
John
If the government treats the Internet like a utility, its cost will definitely go up. At some point Congress will enact taxes to cover the cost of bureaucracy on the government side while Internet providers will pass on compliance costs as well (but not to the government which will mandate exemption).
Right now, if you don't ay your bill, you lose your service. As a regulated utility, it is only a matter of time before complicated shut-off regulations are enacted, the costs of which will again be passed on to consumers.
The costs of regulatory compliance become an additional hurdle for new entrants ultimately having a restrictive effect on choice.
The cost of content on the Internet has become cheaper due to competition. The free marketplace will provide the best solution for the consumer in terms of cost and content. I see the government as a minus in this picture.
John
Re: Internet regulation
Internet neutrality isn't about what we pay. It's about whether Internet service providers are allowed to give preferential treatment to some content providers over others - charge some more or less, provide more or less bandwidth, even block the content provider at all. Maybe this makes the issue clearer.
Super-Simple Way to Understand the Net Neutrality Debate
NOV. 10, 2014
Neil Irwin
It’s one of the most important policy disputes that will determine the future of the Internet, and now President Obama has formally weighed in in favor of so-called net neutrality. What has been a long-simmering battle between telecommunications and tech lobbyists is now likely to step to the front of public debate.
For all the arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?
Regulated electrical utilities perform a remarkable service. Nearly every time I flip a light switch in my home, energy that was generated at some distant power plant and that flows through a complex network of transformers and power lines makes its way to the bulbs overhead, so that I can see. I pay my local electric utility (mine is Pepco, which serves Washington) a nice fee for this service every month, tied to how much of this energy I use and its current price per kilowatt hour, with some money built in for the utility to make a comfortable profit.
But beyond that, Pepco has no role in determining what I use that electricity for. Pepco doesn’t get to offer more reliable, cheaper service if I go with Pepco’s preferred brand of refrigerator, with which the utility has some financial arrangement. They do not know, let alone control, what types of light bulbs or clothes dryer I power using the electricity they sell to me.... For all the technical complexity of generating electricity and distributing it to millions of people, the economic arrangement is very simple: I give them money. They give me electricity. I do with it what I will.
Things are completely different with cable service.
Comcast, my cable provider, offers me a menu of packages from which I might choose, each with a different mix of channels. It goes through long and sometimes arduous negotiations with the owners of those cable channels and has a different business arrangement with each of them. The details of those arrangements are opaque to me as the consumer; all I know is that I can get the movie package for X dollars a month or the sports package for Y dollars and so on.
Local regulators can restrict pricing for the most basic cable offerings. But more extensive cable service is considered a discretionary good, and cable companies have wide latitude to price their offerings at whatever the market will bear, and offer whatever mix of channels they think best.
The downside is that it is easy to end up paying a few hundred dollars a month for cable service. The upside is that this state of affairs has a profusion of new channels and entertainment options. Whether your preference is for high-quality literary scripted television dramas, trashy-but-amusing reality shows or live sports from every corner of the world, you have more options available than ever before, both live and on demand. That is a genuine improvement over the state of Americans’ home entertainment options from just a generation ago.
All of which brings us to net neutrality and the Internet.
One theory of the case, and the one that the Obama administration embraced Monday, is that the Internet is like electricity. It is fundamental to the 21st century economy, as essential to functioning in modern society as electricity. It is a public utility. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” the president said in his written statement.
In the president’s logic, and that of the Internet content companies that are the most aggressive supporters of net neutrality, just as your electric utility has no say in how you use the electricity they sell you, the Internet should be a reliable way to access content produced by anyone, regardless of whether they have any special business arrangement with the utility. Those arguing against net neutrality, most significantly the cable companies, say the Internet will be a richer experience if the profit motive applies, if they can negotiate deals with major content providers (the equivalent of cable channels) so that Netflix or Hulu or other streaming services that use huge bandwidth have to pay for the privilege.
The same kind of business model that has created a boom in content for cable television customers can create a more fertile environment for an explosion of creativity on the Internet, goes this logic. It would also give your Internet provider considerably more economic leverage. It would, in the non-net-neutrality world, be free to throttle the speed with which you could access services that don’t pay up, or block sites entirely, as surely as you cannot watch a cable channel that your cable provider chooses not to offer (perhaps because of a dispute with the channel over fees).
Keep in mind, just because the Obama administration has weighed in doesn’t mean this debate is over. The decision, as the president’s own statement acknowledges, belongs to the Federal Communications Commission alone. Regardless of where it comes out, what is at play is a question that cuts to the core of what role the Internet will play in our daily lives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upsho ... ebate.html
Super-Simple Way to Understand the Net Neutrality Debate
NOV. 10, 2014
Neil Irwin
It’s one of the most important policy disputes that will determine the future of the Internet, and now President Obama has formally weighed in in favor of so-called net neutrality. What has been a long-simmering battle between telecommunications and tech lobbyists is now likely to step to the front of public debate.
For all the arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?
Regulated electrical utilities perform a remarkable service. Nearly every time I flip a light switch in my home, energy that was generated at some distant power plant and that flows through a complex network of transformers and power lines makes its way to the bulbs overhead, so that I can see. I pay my local electric utility (mine is Pepco, which serves Washington) a nice fee for this service every month, tied to how much of this energy I use and its current price per kilowatt hour, with some money built in for the utility to make a comfortable profit.
But beyond that, Pepco has no role in determining what I use that electricity for. Pepco doesn’t get to offer more reliable, cheaper service if I go with Pepco’s preferred brand of refrigerator, with which the utility has some financial arrangement. They do not know, let alone control, what types of light bulbs or clothes dryer I power using the electricity they sell to me.... For all the technical complexity of generating electricity and distributing it to millions of people, the economic arrangement is very simple: I give them money. They give me electricity. I do with it what I will.
Things are completely different with cable service.
Comcast, my cable provider, offers me a menu of packages from which I might choose, each with a different mix of channels. It goes through long and sometimes arduous negotiations with the owners of those cable channels and has a different business arrangement with each of them. The details of those arrangements are opaque to me as the consumer; all I know is that I can get the movie package for X dollars a month or the sports package for Y dollars and so on.
Local regulators can restrict pricing for the most basic cable offerings. But more extensive cable service is considered a discretionary good, and cable companies have wide latitude to price their offerings at whatever the market will bear, and offer whatever mix of channels they think best.
The downside is that it is easy to end up paying a few hundred dollars a month for cable service. The upside is that this state of affairs has a profusion of new channels and entertainment options. Whether your preference is for high-quality literary scripted television dramas, trashy-but-amusing reality shows or live sports from every corner of the world, you have more options available than ever before, both live and on demand. That is a genuine improvement over the state of Americans’ home entertainment options from just a generation ago.
All of which brings us to net neutrality and the Internet.
One theory of the case, and the one that the Obama administration embraced Monday, is that the Internet is like electricity. It is fundamental to the 21st century economy, as essential to functioning in modern society as electricity. It is a public utility. “We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” the president said in his written statement.
In the president’s logic, and that of the Internet content companies that are the most aggressive supporters of net neutrality, just as your electric utility has no say in how you use the electricity they sell you, the Internet should be a reliable way to access content produced by anyone, regardless of whether they have any special business arrangement with the utility. Those arguing against net neutrality, most significantly the cable companies, say the Internet will be a richer experience if the profit motive applies, if they can negotiate deals with major content providers (the equivalent of cable channels) so that Netflix or Hulu or other streaming services that use huge bandwidth have to pay for the privilege.
The same kind of business model that has created a boom in content for cable television customers can create a more fertile environment for an explosion of creativity on the Internet, goes this logic. It would also give your Internet provider considerably more economic leverage. It would, in the non-net-neutrality world, be free to throttle the speed with which you could access services that don’t pay up, or block sites entirely, as surely as you cannot watch a cable channel that your cable provider chooses not to offer (perhaps because of a dispute with the channel over fees).
Keep in mind, just because the Obama administration has weighed in doesn’t mean this debate is over. The decision, as the president’s own statement acknowledges, belongs to the Federal Communications Commission alone. Regardless of where it comes out, what is at play is a question that cuts to the core of what role the Internet will play in our daily lives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upsho ... ebate.html
John Francis
-
CharmNewton
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:10 pm
Re: Internet regulation
The solution is to expand broadband, not regulate existing ISPs. For example, I saw a news clip that Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, is looking into a venture expand Internet access via a fleet of approximately 700 small satellites. He said he'll have more to say on this in 2-3 months.
The actions of the U.S. Government may encourage other regulators to follow suit. Governments have a far more chilling impact on content than ISPs.
Besides potential future regulatory taxes, the moratorium on state and local governments taxing Internet access is set to expire on December 19th unless it is taken up in the lame duck session. The House had passed a bill to make this moratorium permanent (for state and local taxes, but apparently not federal), but that bill died in the Senate.
John
The actions of the U.S. Government may encourage other regulators to follow suit. Governments have a far more chilling impact on content than ISPs.
Besides potential future regulatory taxes, the moratorium on state and local governments taxing Internet access is set to expire on December 19th unless it is taken up in the lame duck session. The House had passed a bill to make this moratorium permanent (for state and local taxes, but apparently not federal), but that bill died in the Senate.
John
Re: Internet regulation
But it's the Internet service providers who, by definition, provide access to Internet service. Simply adding raw capacity does not make that capacity equally available to content providers and to users like us. The ISPs regulate the Internet de facto, and they are intrinsically self-serving. We rely on government to serve the public interest and protect us from abuses, regulating the electricity we use, the food we eat, the medications we take, and so on. The issue here is whether government regulation of the Internet, to limit the discriminatory power of the ISPs and enforce their neutrality, is or isn't in the public interest.CharmNewton wrote:The solution is to expand broadband, not regulate existing ISPs.
That's because ISPs haven't yet abused their power to discriminate among content providers. Some have begun planning to do so only recently, and therefore Internet neutrality has become a pressing issue only recently.CharmNewton wrote:The actions of the U.S. Government may encourage other regulators to follow suit. Governments have a far more chilling impact on content than ISPs.
For many decades, the FCC has regulated the broadcast industry by licensing broadcast frequencies to radio and TV broadcasters and other technical measures, and enforcing minimum standards of decency. I don't see that this has had a chilling effect on the content of radio and TV programs, except by keeping indecency off the air. Or can you show that it has?
I hope the law passes this time. But this really has nothing to do with the Internet neutrality issue as addressed by the President and discussed in the articles I've posted.CharmNewton wrote:Besides potential future regulatory taxes, the moratorium on state and local governments taxing Internet access is set to expire on December 19th unless it is taken up in the lame duck session. The House had passed a bill to make this moratorium permanent (for state and local taxes, but apparently not federal), but that bill died in the Senate.
John Francis
Re: Internet regulation
Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NOV. 14, 2014
Big telecommunications companies and many Republicans in Congress have criticized President Obama’s proposal for strong rules to prevent the creation of fast and slow lanes on the Internet. They claim this is heavy-handed government regulation. But in fact, it is correcting an old mistake.
Mr. Obama says the Federal Communications Commission should reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service, rather than the lightly regulated information service it is now. This would give the commission the authority to prevent broadband providers from slowing the delivery of some web content to favor content from companies that have paid a fee for faster delivery.
The F.C.C., an independent agency, is not obligated to do what Mr. Obama asks. But the checkered regulatory history shows the soundness of Mr. Obama’s idea. The agency decided to classify broadband as an information service in 2002, after debates over how to expand the availability of affordable Internet service. One option was to require “open access,” which would have forced cable companies to lease their networks to competing Internet service providers like AOL and EarthLink. That would have increased competition and lowered prices, but it could have been done only if the commission had classified broadband as a telecommunications service, over which the agency has more control.
The cable companies, of course, strongly opposed such a move, and the chairman of the commission at the time, Michael Powell, thought it was unnecessary because he believed there would be strong competition from phone and wireless companies that would become ever bigger players in the broadband business. He and his colleagues also reasoned that cable modem service was an information service because companies like Comcast offered it with email, web hosting and other services.
In 2005, a 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court upheld the commission’s classification decision as a “reasonable” interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934. But plenty of people criticized that ruling. In a scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that it was “perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is ‘offering’ telecommunications.”
Many of the assumptions the F.C.C. made in 2002 have since proved false. Cable companies dominate the broadband business and face only limited competition. And it is clear that consumers need protection from efforts by broadband companies to start charging different rates for different types of Internet traffic.
Even if broadband is reclassified as a telecommunications service, no one is talking about having federal regulators approve consumer rates or requiring companies to lease their networks to competitors. What Mr. Obama wants is an Internet where service providers handle all content sent and received by consumers equally. His approach takes into account what has happened in the past decade, and it levels the playing field for businesses and protects consumer choice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opini ... tions.html
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NOV. 14, 2014
Big telecommunications companies and many Republicans in Congress have criticized President Obama’s proposal for strong rules to prevent the creation of fast and slow lanes on the Internet. They claim this is heavy-handed government regulation. But in fact, it is correcting an old mistake.
Mr. Obama says the Federal Communications Commission should reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service, rather than the lightly regulated information service it is now. This would give the commission the authority to prevent broadband providers from slowing the delivery of some web content to favor content from companies that have paid a fee for faster delivery.
The F.C.C., an independent agency, is not obligated to do what Mr. Obama asks. But the checkered regulatory history shows the soundness of Mr. Obama’s idea. The agency decided to classify broadband as an information service in 2002, after debates over how to expand the availability of affordable Internet service. One option was to require “open access,” which would have forced cable companies to lease their networks to competing Internet service providers like AOL and EarthLink. That would have increased competition and lowered prices, but it could have been done only if the commission had classified broadband as a telecommunications service, over which the agency has more control.
The cable companies, of course, strongly opposed such a move, and the chairman of the commission at the time, Michael Powell, thought it was unnecessary because he believed there would be strong competition from phone and wireless companies that would become ever bigger players in the broadband business. He and his colleagues also reasoned that cable modem service was an information service because companies like Comcast offered it with email, web hosting and other services.
In 2005, a 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court upheld the commission’s classification decision as a “reasonable” interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934. But plenty of people criticized that ruling. In a scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that it was “perfectly clear that someone who sells cable-modem service is ‘offering’ telecommunications.”
Many of the assumptions the F.C.C. made in 2002 have since proved false. Cable companies dominate the broadband business and face only limited competition. And it is clear that consumers need protection from efforts by broadband companies to start charging different rates for different types of Internet traffic.
Even if broadband is reclassified as a telecommunications service, no one is talking about having federal regulators approve consumer rates or requiring companies to lease their networks to competitors. What Mr. Obama wants is an Internet where service providers handle all content sent and received by consumers equally. His approach takes into account what has happened in the past decade, and it levels the playing field for businesses and protects consumer choice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opini ... tions.html
John Francis
-
CharmNewton
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:10 pm
Re: Internet regulation
It really is as simple as adding bandwidth, which has been the trend since the days of dial-up. ISPs will add all the capacity they can sell, whether it be to the NetFlixes, Amazon.coms, Apple TVs or consumers like you and me. And they have to keep us happy because we can always go to other ISPs for Internet access.John F wrote:Simply adding raw capacity does not make that capacity equally available to content providers and to users like us. The ISPs regulate the Internet de facto, and they are intrinsically self-serving.
As I understand it, there are a number of laws on the books regulating ISPs that are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. We don't need yet another regulatory body. If ISPs become regulated as utilities under the Telecommunications Act of 1934, then all provisions of the law come into play regardless of whether someone is or isn't talking of it now. Ultimately more regulation means higher costs to consumers as additional taxes and the burden of regulatory expenses are passed on to them.
Perhaps the FTC has had something to do with this. It has been reported that Netflix content can consume about one-third of available Internet bandwidth on a given night. Why shouldn't they pay more for bandwidth from the ISPs? And ISPs will ramp up capacity to meet the need as long as there is money to be made.John F wrote:That's because ISPs haven't yet abused their power to discriminate among content providers. Some have begun planning to do so only recently, and therefore Internet neutrality has become a pressing issue only recently.
I can't say. When I moved from Chicago in 1997, we had a handful of channels on broadcast television--CBS, NBC, ABC, Tribune Media, PBS, Chicago City Colleges, Fox and 2 independents. Perhaps there are a lot of costs in running a broadcast station, but I suspect that there were other entities that would have loved to have broadcast licenses. And there are certainly enough channels between VHF (2-13) and UHF (14-83) to have supported more broadcast content providers. Look at the explosion of content on cable, which isn't regulated by the FCC (so far).John F wrote:For many decades, the FCC has regulated the broadcast industry by licensing broadcast frequencies to radio and TV broadcasters and other technical measures, and enforcing minimum standards of decency. I don't see that this has had a chilling effect on the content of radio and TV programs, except by keeping indecency off the air. Or can you show that it has?
It was mentioned only to show that increased government regulation and taxes go hand in hand. And these taxes are always ultimately borne by the consumer as are the added cost of regulatory compliance.John F wrote:I hope the law passes this time. But this really has nothing to do with the Internet neutrality issue as addressed by the President and discussed in the articles I've posted.
John
Re: Internet regulation
You just don't get it - "it" being the topic of this thread as addressed by the President - so I won't repeat myself. However, I will answer one of your questions, and respond to your final comment.
First of all, what "has been reported" ain't necessarily so. But even if it is, so what? The reason for it is consumer demand for Netflix's product. Charging Netflix more, then, merely adds to the viewer's cost, because of course Netflix won't "eat" a significant additional cost of doing business but will pass it along to its consumers. Oh, and it also adds to the ISPs' profits, which is why they're hot to get out from under Internet neutrality; they would be the only winners in terms of $$$. Is all this really what you want? I sure don't, even though I've never used Netflix and don't expect to.CharmNewton wrote:It has been reported that Netflix content can consume about one-third of available Internet bandwidth on a given night. Why shouldn't they pay more for bandwidth from the ISPs?
This has not been true in the broadcast industry, as far as I know. Whether or not radio networks and stations pay additional taxes of some kind or other because of FCC regulation, I don't know. But since broadcast radio is available to the consumer free of charge, how can he or she bear the cost of such taxation or other cost of regulation, if any? Arithmetic was never my best subject, but these numbers add up to zero.CharmNewton wrote:increased government regulation and taxes go hand in hand. And these taxes are always ultimately borne by the consumer as are the added cost of regulatory compliance.
John Francis
-
CharmNewton
- Posts: 2180
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 9:10 pm
Re: Internet regulation
What I don't get is--what broke the Internet in the last few weeks that requires government regulation to fix by application of a 42 page law passed in 1934 (amended in 1996)? I haven't noticed any issues. You mentioned that Time-Warner increased your bandwidth to 50 megabits/second. It's quite remarkable that you get that kind of throughput connected to a network alongside millions of other computers. The ISPs must be doing something right. So why the rush to regulate them? This sounds like a case of being careful what you wish for.John F wrote:You just don't get it - "it" being the topic of this thread as addressed by the President - so I won't repeat myself. However, I will answer one of your questions, and respond to your final comment.
The consumers of the broadcast industry are its advertisers. The costs of taxes and regulatory compliance are passed on to them. Those advertisers then have to decide whether they can pass the increased costs on to their consumers, reduce their advertising exposure on the station or just eat them. This can be an important decision, especially for local advertisers--the auto dealers, roofers, heating/AC service companies, retailers, etc.--people important to the local economy.John F wrote:his has not been true in the broadcast industry, as far as I know. Whether or not radio networks and stations pay additional taxes of some kind or other because of FCC regulation, I don't know. But since broadcast radio is available to the consumer free of charge, how can he or she bear the cost of such taxation or other cost of regulation, if any? Arithmetic was never my best subject, but these numbers add up to zero.
John
-
diegobueno
- Winds Specialist
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:26 pm
- Contact:
Re: Internet regulation
Nothing broke the internet--yet. Net neutrality is what we've had all along, and hopefully will always have, unless some greedy corporations decide to "fix" the system in their favor.
Black lives matter.
Re: Internet regulation
Exactly. It's just that now the ISPs are indeed trying to "fix" the system, so net neutrality needs defending more than ever. The President is right.diegobueno wrote:Nothing broke the internet--yet. Net neutrality is what we've had all along, and hopefully will always have, unless some greedy corporations decide to "fix" the system in their favor.
John Francis
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests