FCC to propose Net 'neutrality' rules

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday.

The reports said the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announce the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The proposals would uphold a pledge Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign to support Internet neutrality and would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks.

Without strict rules ensuring Net neutrality, consumer watchdogs fear the communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as TV shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with services the ISPs offer, like cable television.

Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.

The proposed new rules were reported by The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

"We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy," Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at CTIA, a wireless trade group, told the Post.

The FCC began wading into the issue even before Genachowski became FCC chairman. Last year the FCC rebuked Comcast for blocking or delaying some forms of Internet file-sharing. Comcast agreed to stop the practice.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/200...etrules-ON.html

[Heracles 417]

I have to say I don't totally agree with that. Why should the telecommunications companies spend hundreds of millions upgrading their network, only to collect $42 bucks a month from a customer, while google and youtube congest the networks and earn billions?

While I agree they should not be able to block services, I think they should have a right to demand someone like youtube pay a usage fee.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[Dan J 277]

I have to say I don't totally agree with that. Why should the telecommunications companies spend hundreds of millions upgrading their network, only to collect $42 bucks a month from a customer, while google and youtube congest the networks and earn billions?

While I agree they should not be able to block services, I think they should have a right to demand someone like youtube pay a usage fee.

If you have a problem with customers using your service, your probably in the wrong business.

For Comcast most of their arguments have nothing to do with the cost of providing internet service, but instead it has to do with limiting competition to its lucrative cable TV business.

But really internet infrastructure should be publically owned, so that the cost of entry into the internet service provider business would be much less. With that we will get quite a bit more real competition, of which we are sorely lacking. There are many places with just one broadband ISP, and few places really have more than two.

[Heracles 417]

I have to say I don't totally agree with that. Why should the telecommunications companies spend hundreds of millions upgrading their network, only to collect $42 bucks a month from a customer, while google and youtube congest the networks and earn billions?

While I agree they should not be able to block services, I think they should have a right to demand someone like youtube pay a usage fee.

If you have a problem with customers using your service, your probably in the wrong business.

For Comcast most of their arguments have nothing to do with the cost of providing internet service, but instead it has to do with limiting competition to its lucrative cable TV business.

But really internet infrastructure should be publically owned, so that the cost of entry into the internet service provider business would be much less. With that we will get quite a bit more real competition, of which we are sorely lacking. There are many places with just one broadband ISP, and few places really have more than two.

Funny you should mention that but this is exactly what AUS is doing. The federal government is building a nationwide fiber to the home network, to every home. This way they can wholesale the service to other internet providers eliminating monopolies.

I certainly only have one provider in my area. Do not even have DSL here. Whereas I had 30+ providers in Melb, Aus. Technology ranged from wimax, to ADSL2+ (majority of providers) and even two different cable providers.

[mawilson 2,133]

I have to say I don't totally agree with that. Why should the telecommunications companies spend hundreds of millions upgrading their network, only to collect $42 bucks a month from a customer, while google and youtube congest the networks and earn billions?

Why shouldn't they earn billions? YouTube and such provide content, telcos provide access to that content - big difference.

[Heracles 417]

I have to say I don't totally agree with that. Why should the telecommunications companies spend hundreds of millions upgrading their network, only to collect $42 bucks a month from a customer, while google and youtube congest the networks and earn billions?

Why shouldn't they earn billions? YouTube and such provide content, telcos provide access to that content - big difference.

They should earn billions but the tecos should also be able to charge them for use of their network. After all broadband networks are like private toll roads. As such, the telcos should be able to say to the heavy users, pay up or your access will be slowed and restricted.

[mawilson 2,133]

I have to say I don't totally agree with that. Why should the telecommunications companies spend hundreds of millions upgrading their network, only to collect $42 bucks a month from a customer, while google and youtube congest the networks and earn billions?

Why shouldn't they earn billions? YouTube and such provide content, telcos provide access to that content - big difference.

They should earn billions but the tecos should also be able to charge them for use of their network. After all broadband networks are like private toll roads. As such, the telcos should be able to say to the heavy users, pay up or your access will be slowed and restricted.

That's allowed, I think, as long as they don't pick and choose which services to slow down.

Though if they promise a 3Mbps downstream connection, don't tell me I have to pay extra if I actually go as high as 3Mbps.

[Heracles 417]

That's allowed, I think, as long as they don't pick and choose which services to slow down.

Though if they promise a 3Mbps downstream connection, don't tell me I have to pay extra if I actually go as high as 3Mbps.

The user should not pay any extra as they already pay but if google or other content providers are congesting a telcos network, as they do, the telco should be able to ask them to pay up for use. At present they pay nothing. Technically content providers could push or stream enough content down a telcos network rendering it useless to others.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

That's allowed, I think, as long as they don't pick and choose which services to slow down.

Though if they promise a 3Mbps downstream connection, don't tell me I have to pay extra if I actually go as high as 3Mbps.

The user should not pay any extra as they already pay but if google or other content providers are congesting a telcos network, as they do, the telco should be able to ask them to pay up for use. At present they pay nothing. Technically content providers could push or stream enough content down a telcos network rendering it useless to others.

So does this mean more free porn or not?

[dalegg 143]

That's allowed, I think, as long as they don't pick and choose which services to slow down.

Though if they promise a 3Mbps downstream connection, don't tell me I have to pay extra if I actually go as high as 3Mbps.

The user should not pay any extra as they already pay but if google or other content providers are congesting a telcos network, as they do, the telco should be able to ask them to pay up for use. At present they pay nothing. Technically content providers could push or stream enough content down a telcos network rendering it useless to others.

That's correct. You have to remember that when ISPs promise speeds, they are actually referring to "Download Speeds", not connection speeds. HUGE, enormous difference.

I'll give you an example- Cable Companies have bandwidth pipes of about 38 mb/s that are shared by about 200 subscribers, and they offer speeds to all of those subscribes between 5 to 10 mb/s usually. At first, the math doesn't seem to support that because if everyone was offered 10 mb/s, only about 4 subscribers would be able to connect at a time. However, when you are talking about download speeds, that transaction only takes a couple minutes at most, so now that pipe is available for any of the other users.

Nowadays, subscribers are streaming video, but it's usually less than 1 mb/s and utilization habits are not at the point of breaking the pipe, but it has caused more pipes to be opened up to maintain service to existing subs. But imagine if a service decides to start offering a true high quality 1080p streaming movie service. This could actually tie up that 38 mb/s very quickly if just 3 subscribers out of 200 start using it, not to mention the affect on the network backbone. You will get to the point where instead of sharing a pipe between 200 subs, you'll have to divide it between 10 subs. You could be talking about an entire system architecture rebuild- and in the end, its not to gain any more revenue from subscribers, its to maintain your existing base.

I believe in the end these complaints will not matter. The FCC has always sided against cable companies and telcos and the beefing up of the networks will in the end provide more jobs.

Edited September 20, 2009 by dalegg

[Niels Bohr 72]

Internet 2 will replace the existing internet infrastructure. I2 is on a few universities. I know WPI, MIT, Brown, Yale, Stanford, are using them. It's only a matter of time before we get that.

So, the internet will always increase in network upgrades. Not only that, cloud computing is also under massive development. Where an application is run somewhere in the cloud, and will load just the gui on the client. In other words, the application is run on the cloud with the interface on your computer. This will require lots of bandwidth. Which means, the future will probably not need an advance computer.

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other service providers are underway with developing the cloud computing facilities in Arizona, Washington, Arkansas, etc..These places will house millions of computers, it will take a large space, massive air conditioning units. I was hired to help plan the power control system for these facilities to make sure they deliver enough power for each computer.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Niels Bohr