Internet Regulation: How About This Ad Hominem?

[wa3zrm]

The New York Times starts its commentary on proposed Internet regulations with a clever ad hominem argument: “The Republican attack on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to classify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service sounded a lot like the G.O.P. talking points on health care reform.”
The GOP are being like themselves. Accordingly, Times readers should think their viewpoint is yucky. It’s not the most substantive argument you’ll come across today.
There are good reasons not to encumber the Internet with regulations designed for the telephone system. Here are four: The Internet is not like the telephone system, and the FCC doesn’t have the institutional ability to manage a changing, competitive system of networks. Extending “universal service” telephone taxes to the Internet will drive down adoption and frustrate universal service goals. The FCC is subject to capture by the very interests from which the Times thinks regulation would “protect.” The Internet’s large cadre of technologists and active consumers will do a better job than the FCC of protecting consumers’ interests.
But ad hominem is more fun. So let’s ask why the New York Times didn’t disclose that, as a content provider, it has a dog in the fight? Net neutrality regulation would act as a subsidy to content providers like the Times, ultimately paid by consumers as higher prices for Internet access.

[wa3zrm]

FCC Pushes for Net Neutrality and Internet Regulation: What Happens Next? [Update]

Net neutrality, considered a centerpiece initiative for FCC chair Julius Genachowski, would effectively stop Internet providers from slowing or blocking access to Web sites. It's among the most important political topics that most net-heads don't understand. And the debate's just been reignited: Yesterday Genachowski revealed plans to reclassify broadband lines so that they are governed by the same rules as traditional phone networks, which the FCC has legal authority over--creating a loophole large enough to push through net neutrality rules on ISPs. So what happens next?
The Federal Communications Commission may not have the authority to regulate broadband access. A federal appeals court decision in April ruled against the FCC's attempt to impose "network neutrality" regulations that would force Internet service provider (ISPs) like AT&T and Comcast to treat all Web traffic equally, regardless of the content accessed or level of consumption. This new debate on the FCC's authority will center around the legal hurdles of reclassifying Internet access under Title II of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
In 2002, the FCC under the Bush administration deregulated high-speed broadband networks under the Act, freeing service providers from the restraints facing telcom companies. Professor of law at University of Michigan, Susan Crawford, recently called this a "radical move," arguing that the FCC had initially hoped deregulation would spur greater competition in the market, "but a wave of mergers instead reduced it," she said. "Prices stayed high and speeds slow. And eventually the carriers started saying that they wanted to be gatekeepers -- creating fast lanes for some Web sites and applications and slow lanes for others."
While Crawford believes that the FCC has the legal authority to re-regulate ISPs by changing its classification, some say the process is full of legal landmines. "Any effort to 'reclassify' broadband without Congressional action would be met with vigorous legal challenges every step of the way," contends Larry Downes, a fellow at Standford Law School Center for Internet & Society, who believes applying existing regulations on Internet lines owned by telecoms would have unintended consequences. "Nothing in the Communications Act gives the FCC authority to decide on its own what is and what is not a telecommunications service. Congress already made that decision. That broadband Internet is an unregulated 'information service' is already long-settled law, law made concrete by the FCC itself."
Outside of legal repercussions, such reclassification would also face serious political oppositions, analysts argue. Since Genachowski is an Obama appointee, such a fight to bring potentially broad-ranging rules to the Internet could be seen as another case of government over-regulation, which Republicans might use as political fodder in the upcoming mid-term elections.
And it didn't take long for the political opposition to start. Using "outdated monopoly telephone rules is a major mistake," Senator John Ensign (R-NV) said in an email today. "The government has taken over a lot of industries just this year, and the last thing that our economy needs right now is for the government to take over the Internet, too.”
Democrats on the other hand have indicated support for increased agency power. Senator John Kerry argued that the Genachowski "has chosen a measured middle path and I support it." Representatives Henry Waxman and John Rockefeller also expressed support for the direction.
Considering the issues of legal authority and a potential effort for large-scale lobbying opposition, one has to wonder if such an issue is even worth the political capital. This will certainly fit in nicely with the "government-takeover" narrative that plagued the health care debate. Is it worth it to fight for an issue the majority of the public won't even understand? Clearly, the Obama administration thought so for health care. But for this? Are the mid-term elections really worth protecting BitTorrent users from ISP throttling?
UPDATE: FCC chair Julius Genachowski said Thursday that the agency has found a compromise in key areas of Internet regulation. "[Genachowski] said this delicate dance will ensure the agency has adequate authority to govern broadband providers without being too 'heavy-handed,'" AP reports.

[sgreger1]

The internet is literally the last bastion of freedom. The wild-west like environment on the internet has led to an over-abundance of innovation and cool shit. There is no invention that has sparked more creativity in the last 100 years than the internet.

KEEP THE GOVERNMENT AWAY FROM IT.

The internet, though at times cluttered, is exactly what America stands for. You can say whatever you want, unhindered, you can buy and trade freely amongst yourselves or do business with actual businesses, and it's all user driven. It's a bunch of people who came from all over to build something great. The internet is more American than the flag itself.


*Someone please insert a witty "The Internet is a set of tubes" joke somewhere in this thread.

[Darwin]

Aside from gay marriage, abortion, and a full panoply of legal rights for illegal immigrants and terrorists is there frak all else that the Progressive political class does not view as ripe, ready, and crying out for more government control?

[RobsanX]

I don't think you all understand net neutrality. The FCC simply want all content providers, including the little guys like Snuson.com to have equal access to the internet. Without it sites that charge for content will get preferential treatment. Personally I like coming to free places like here, YouTube, Facebook, and wherever else, and I sure as hell don't need to be paying any more subscription fees.

[lxskllr]

I don't think you all understand net neutrality. The FCC simply want all content providers, including the little guys like Snuson.com to have equal access to the internet. Without it sites that charge for content will get preferential treatment. Personally I like coming to free places like here, YouTube, Facebook, and wherever else, and I sure as hell don't need to be paying any more subscription fees.

^^^

Yea, net neutrality means everybody's bits are worth exactly the same amount, and they travel the same path through the web. Without that, Companies could charge for "premium access" to get better bandwidth, and everybody else gets deprioritized. Net neutrality's very important for the future growth and freedom of the internet.

[danielan]

Yea, net neutrality means everybody's bits are worth exactly the same amount, and they travel the same path through the web. Without that, Companies could charge for "premium access" to get better bandwidth, and everybody else gets deprioritized. Net neutrality's very important for the future growth and freedom of the internet.

"Net Neutrality" is also very dangerous for the future of the Internet. The theoretical risk that Google will pay your ISP for premium access and that this premium access will come at the cost of other users instead of increased capacity is, IMO, less likely then the everyday network management that is required to keep an ISP working the best for the most users.

I've been deeply involved with the building and operation of 2 ISP's over the past 20 years. I can say unequivocally that you must be manage your network or it sucks for everyone.

Bandwidth is a limited resource for every ISP. Upstream bandwidth is usually your biggest expense and to operate profitably (which is the only way to continue to operate) you need to manage this.

You find that you have 3 types of users:
1. People who want to surf and do e-mail quickly and reliably.
2. People who trend a bit higher on the bandwidth usage, but are generally more aware of the limitations and try to act accordingly.
3. People who feel entitled to 1GB/s for 24 hours a day 7 days a week because, "I paid for unlimited access"

Type 1's pay the bills. Type 2's are generally not a problem and if they become a problem are quick to fix things when they are notified. Type 3's screw the whole thing up for everyone.

So, what do you do? At one ISP, we warned the Type 3's 3 times, then we shaped all of their traffic. If they persisted or tried to work around the shapers, we stopped providing service to them. At the other, we shaped certain types of traffic, i.e. live video, gnutella, etc, based on usage across the board and prioritized e-mail.

Time for a bad analogy.

Imagine if you will, that you live in a rural community. You as a group decide to pool your resources and put in a well. This pump is rated at 100 gallons a minute. Each house has a line that can take 50 gallons a minute. Since you are all paying for it, you decide that there will be no per gallon fees. This works well for a while until someone puts in a pool. Which they inexplicably drain every evening and fill every morning. While they are filling their pool they are taking 50 gallons a minute, leaving everyone else in the community to split half the remaining capacity. This causes everyone else to have no pressure for their showers, etc.

What should you do?

This is the problem that ISP's are facing every day and this is the issue that ComCast went to the Supreme court over.

If "Net Neutrality" is regulated, IMO, the only solution is to stop selling "unlimited" bandwidth and meter everyone. This will piss me off because, I am more or less a Type 2 user and tend to use a bit more bandwidth then I pay for.

[lxskllr]

All that's well and good, but I don't have much sympathy for the ISPs if they don't want to put money into the network, or limit their expenditures so they can show an increased profit this year. If they want to be in the internet business, they have to play. I'm paying $70 per month for internet only. I'm fairly happy with the service, but $70 per month's too much. If they're allowed to limit bandwidth due to companies competing for the same service, that opens things up to a wide range of abuse, and I very well may tell them to stuff their $70 internet up their ass, and go without.

[justintempler]

I've got no problem with metered access but I am totally against the ISP deciding to bundle tiers of access from different providers.
I want the freedom of choosing Skype if I want and not being forced into taking Comcast's Internet phone.
I don't want this to turn into a mirror of cable tv packages where certain websites can only be accessed by buying a package or a la carte.

[lxskllr]

Speaking of metered access, I'm fine with that too as long as the rates don't start where I am, and go up from there. Comcast set a 250gb limit on their cable before the traffic gets shaped. That's fine, so I get 250gb for my $70. 125gb should be $35, 62gb should $17, and so on, and so on. That's not what the companies want. They want a bare almost unusable minimum for $40, and then go up from there. That's unacceptable.

[danielan]

That's unacceptable.

So go talk to the FCC. Ask them what a full tariff T1 costs and why this is still so expensive - ask why they are even involved with this price fixing.

I've been out of that loop for 5 years or so, but I'll bet a full T1 (1.5Mb) with access will still run you around $500/month and a $1,000 setup if you can even get one.

I'm sure looking forward to the USF being applied to my Internet bill too. If we get enough "common sense" regulation maybe my Internet can cost $70 too.

This is what involving the FCC gets you. Not faster, not better.

Involving the government does not make things better. And once they are involved you can never get them back out.

Who isn't building out their network? Is this a actual problem or a theoretical one? Cox, my ISP, has gotten MUCH faster, more reliable, peered better, etc in the 14 years I've been with them.

I don't want this to turn into a mirror of cable tv packages where certain websites can only be accessed by buying a package or a la carte.

So, wait until there is an actual problem and not a theoretical one. Believe me, the govt will have no problem stomping in after the fact if something like this actually happens. Until it does happen - IMO, it's insane to invite regulation of a healthy industry.

[sgreger1]

Perhaps my statement of "keep the government away from it" is misleading. I agree with net neutrality, but it all depends on how it is done. I also don't mind metered access, though I like the current model. My fear is what Justin said (and it has been proposed) where you sign up for certain bundled content, like 5$ a month for social network access, 5$ a month for certain news sites access etc, and it all adds up. I want free unadulterated access to the internet and all it's content. I do realize that news sites and some others are losing money right now, so they will try to recoup profit by bundling like I said above (or having a subscription fee for their site like some do).

I agree with net neutrality if it's just a rule that the ISP's can't conspire together to charge more. Like Lx, I think internet access is already to expensive. But ISP's haven't done anything from the doomsday book yet, if they decide to start bundling shit, then we can have a push for net neutrality. Until that happens, the current model seems to be working fine, and it's best to keep regulators out until there is a problem.

[danielan]

I also don't mind metered access, though I like the current model.

I assure you, you will not save money with metered access (ISP costs will go up, not down). You will also hate it. i.e., I can't go to snuson the rest of the month, because my wife watched her soap online this week. I had to apply SP3 to my windows, now I can't watch hulu for the rest of the month, etc.

My fear is what Justin said (and it has been proposed) where you sign up for certain bundled content, like 5$ a month for social network access, 5$ a month for certain news sites access etc, and it all adds up.

Proposed by whom? When? I know of no ISP that has ever proposed this.

(or having a subscription fee for their site like some do).

Subscription fees from content providers are a completely different issue, unrelated to "Net Neutrality".

I agree with net neutrality if it's just a rule that the ISP's can't conspire together to charge more.

Sure, and I wouldn't care about PACT if it was just about cigarettes. Look into it. It will affect you.

Like Lx, I think internet access is already to expensive.

How? I don't know what you pay. I pay $45/month or so for unlimited, 365 days, 24 hours a day Internet. There is no cheaper entertainment. Movies? $8/hour. Cable TV? $100/month etc. Books? ok, used paperback are cheaper, but even new paperbacks I'd go over $45/month.

When has increased regulation EVER made anything cheaper?

[lxskllr]

I pay $70 per month for 8/3. I'd be interested in hearing what our European members pay.

Edit:
I stand corrected. It looks like they raised my speed. Coincidence that it happened when FIOS started pushing hard in my area :^D

[sgreger1]

I tend to agree Danielan that regulation is normally a bad thing. This is why I said no need fornet neutrality untill an actual problem presents itself. There are arguments on both sides of the fence here. I will try to dig up the article, but I saw a whole draw up from some ISP's that showed the proposed bundling packages and the pricing etc. I am trying to find it again right now.



"Without net neutrality rules, new technologies could lead to pricing practices that transfer wealth from content providers to ISPs," warns the Institute for Policy Integrity, "a form of price discrimination that would reduce the return on investment for Internet content—meaning website owners, bloggers, newspapers, and businesses would have less incentive to expand their sites and applications."



"the Internet is more useful to everyone on it, but Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content providers are at a disadvantage since they are not compensated for all the information they disseminate," "This leads to systematic underinvestment in the Internet: if that income could be accessed, it would encourage investment in infrastructure and content."



There is a way that the big ISPs could generate additional income. They could do more than just charge content providers to upload their data to the Web. They could tithe them in various ways for priority subscriber access, which is what both AT&T and the cable companies say they want. The telcos and cable call this "value added" or "enhanced delivery" service—but basically it would involve content makers paying the ISPs more money for faster subscriber access.

The Internet in the United States is currently running under de facto net neutrality rules already. The ISPs have voluntarily, albeit reluctantly, refrained from cutting priority access deals with content providers. The FCC's net neutrality proposals would codify many of these voluntary practices into law.


^---- This is from PC world, arguing in favor of net neutrality. The current method is working (we have net neutrality right now), the FCC's proposal would just make it law that is must remain this way. I don't trust the FCC but I don't see how they could mess this up. They are simply saying things have to stay the way they are, not changing them.


Internet here is about 70$ if you want a wireless router. The only thing I will say is that if the FCC enforces NN regulation now, ISP's may be inclined to raise prices to get retaliation, or start charging by how much data is transferred, this could be bad. This is why I say, don't force the issue until it become a real problem. Right now, this is regulators looking to solve a problem that doesn't yet exist