Content Control FCC says no broadband content rules needed According to at least one FCC official, no new rules are needed to govern the control of information by large broadband providers. Comcast's decision to refuse to run any competitor's DSL ads is one such example. As companies like Comcast grow, consumer advocates worry that the companies will block ads for businesses they get involved in (PVR's, wireless gear, VoIP), or that they'll actually manipulate or control the content reaching consumers (or redirect them to 'partner' companies). The ACLU has voiced concerns in recent months (see their report, How Monopoly Control of the Broadband Internet Threatens Free Speech). For what it's worth, the the National Cable and Telecommunications Association has said they will try to play nicely. At the FCC, at least one official feels there's no need for any rules governing content control. Kenneth Ferree, head of the FCC's media bureau, apparently isn't much of a forward thinker. "It is not entirely clear why a regulatory openness mandate is such an imperative right now," he notes. "There seem to be powerful market incentives already for broadband providers to make their systems consumer-friendly, that is to ensure their networks are largely open."Verizon was quick to chime on on the issue late last week, issuing a press release that addressed FCC regulation of the broadband industry as a whole. "A competitive market will ensure that all content providers...will be able to reach any Internet-connected customer without interference from software, hardware or access providers, regardless of affiliation," said Tom Tauke, senior vice president for Public Policy & External Affairs at Verizon. According to Consumer Federation of America research director Mark Cooper, the threat is very real, and the " threat of discrimination against content" cripples both investment and innovation. Ferree on the other hand argues that rules preventing such activities would do the exact same thing, muzzling the industry at the worst possible time. Feree has apparently almost completed his recommendation to the five FCC commissioners, but wasn't able to indicate when any action would be taken on the issue.
|
 rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | Ahh It's nice to know we have the best public officials that money can buy ;-( | |
|  SarickIt's Only LogicalPremium
join:2003-06-03
USA
|  Not protected!
Gator has been doing this for a while with spyware I understand. (found this in spybots info when I found a bot)
If this ruling allows this type of content blocking now we will know the outcome. In a few years big isp's might force small companies and free web sites out of busyness because they block the adds that make them stay afloat.
Host that offer content should have the right to put up adds to support their site. If Isp's are allowed to garnish the adds or services then these sites might not last long. It's also wrong if an ISP puts their own adverisments in place of the host adds.
Look at cable TV a few years back basicly the same thing happened. Local TV stations where upset because the cable was retransmitting local content and replacing advertisements with cable company add segments.
Internet is internet, not AOLinternet or EarthlinkInternet just because a private company owns the connection your using or your backbone dosen't mean they should have a right to make a public network, restricted to their best interest.
[text was edited by author 2003-06-30 09:48:50] | |
|  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Invertebrates . . . The FCC in its history has generally been pretty spineless, and this round of "officials" isn't any better.
I see them in hearings praising Congressfolk up & down for their "leadership" on a particular issue, I tell you what it's really quite disgusting.
Generally speaking one would like to believe that the open market will take care of itself. However, history (especially recent history) has shown that the media moguls have absofreakinlutely no quams about squelching those voices which don't mux with its own. One could say that cablecos or any broadband provider would be rather stupid to try and limit content, especially if they do so in a way which is patently obvious -- as customer satisfaction would likely dictate loss of subscribers (not that cablecos have ever been concerned about that before).
As broadband adoption increases and the media entities take a more hands on "it's OUR network!!!" approach, we are could start to see some very interesting effects on what you can and cannot see with your connection, or what "enhanced content" certain providers serve up.
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | |
|  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | ha ha You all are losing, you all all losing. Nah nah nah nah nah. We don't need nanny-state government to take care of us, you freakin' leftists. | |
|  | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: ha ha quote:
The Sky Ain't Falling
"Let this decision (by the FCC to relax media ownership rules) proceed unhampered, the critics say, and woe be the nation. A handful of corporations will come to own most news outlets, they tell us, and within some large cities and the nation at large they will determine what gets known and what doesn't.
"...Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing. In the recorded history of the human family, there has never, ever been a time and place with as many information outlets as are now to be found in the 21st century in the
United States.
"The Internet alone provides the possibility for virtually all of us to possess the equivalent of a printing press. Then there is cable TV, which provides hundreds of channels compared to just three broadcast channels I was able to tune in when I was a child. Of course, there are newspapers, and there are magazines and books and newsletters. [I forgot to mention satellite radio before, but there's another substitute].
"The chief absurdity in all the worrying about American journalism being in the hands of a relatively few corporations is that the proposed alternative is to leave much of it in the hands of the federal government."
- Columnist Jay Ambrose
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell | |
| | | | | Re: ha ha Oooh. Quotes.
You must be right. | |
| | |  oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | said by LegoPower77:
quote:
The Sky Ain't Falling
"Let this decision (by the FCC to relax media ownership rules) proceed unhampered, the critics say, and woe be the nation. A handful of corporations will come to own most news outlets, they tell us, and within some large cities and the nation at large they will determine what gets known and what doesn't.
"...Excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing. In the recorded history of the human family, there has never, ever been a time and place with as many information outlets as are now to be found in the 21st century in the
United States.
Yeah, and they're all owned by the same minority of media interests that with surely just grow smaller. Great logic sport.
said by talentless hack:
"The Internet alone provides the possibility for virtually all of us to possess the equivalent of a printing press. Then there is cable TV, which provides hundreds of channels compared to just three broadcast channels I was able to tune in when I was a child. Of course, there are newspapers, and there are magazines and books and newsletters. [I forgot to mention satellite radio before, but there's another substitute].
Until your check doesn't make it to the handful of providers like Time Warner and Comcast that control the ACCESS to the content.
said by talentless hack:
"The chief absurdity in all the worrying about American journalism being in the hands of a relatively few corporations is that the proposed alternative is to leave much of it in the hands of the federal government."
No schmuck, it's that the access is PROTECTED by the government. I'm sure than in Facistville this is a foriegn concept.
said by talentless hack:
- Columnist Jay Ambrose
Half a bubble off plumb. | |
| | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: ha ha  | |
| | | | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: ha ha Of course...should I have expected a troll to actually substantiate his claims. LOL. | |
| | | | | | | | | |  ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH | said by LegoPower77:
That was original. Where have I encountered this attitude before?
Let's see: "My position is so right, so correct, so fair, so enlightened, and so obviously all of the above, that I should not be bothered with arguing it or explaining it. If you don't get it, it's either because of your flawed character, your questionable agenda, or your inferior intellect. Either way, it's your problem, not mine."
Oh, yeah... I was convinced only liberals felt that way. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
You know, if you took the trouble to communicate rather than rant, I'd probably agree with you more often than not. Not that this should mean anything, you understand. | |
| | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: ha ha Wrong, it's leftists that can't take a joke.
And just because you disagree with it, it's a rant. I think that most of my posts are well reasoned and well written (of course, I am biased in this regard  ). True, occasionally I have to blow off steam (like the post that got this whole thing started) but that's just because it seems like I just go in circles in here. But alas, the tide is turning. The economics community has long since abandoned what was mainstream from the 30s to the mid-70s, and it's only a matter of time before the rest of you all come along (the FCC rulings as of late are quite an encouragement  ).
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | | | | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: ha ha Welcome to last week. | |
| | | | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: ha ha Notice how you don't address the point. Sorry, didn't realize that these issues had an expiration date. Actually they don't, because I was able to say what I was trying to say in response to this post (»Competition is Bad?) in "Competition is Bad?" forum, N.B.: »Competition is Bad?
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | | | | | | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: ha ha If you actually had a point...then I may have considered it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: ha ha Aak. . . it was just too far over your head, obviously. I don't know why I bother with you at all since so many others are at least willing to respond without being ad hominem. In fact, I won't.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
|
| | | | | | ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH | said by LegoPower77:
And just because you disagree with it, it's a rant.
You got it backwards: It's a rant, therefore I disagree  said by LegoPower77:
I think that most of my posts are well reasoned and well written...True, occasionally I have to blow off steam (like the post that got this whole thing started) but that's just because it seems like I just go in circles in here.
I respectfully suggest that persuasion by means of logical reasoning based on facts will go much further than lecturing from a bully pulpit, which I'm sad to say, is the tone in most of your messages.
Look, I'm a lot closer to "Laissez-faire" (THAT'S how it's spelled, dagnabit) Capitalism than I suspect you think I am. But corporate enterprise is not directed by some omniscient and infallible benevolent entity out there, but by flawed human beings, who through perfectly legitimate processes end up having great powers and great abilities to affect our lives, for better or worse. I don't believe it's morally objectionable or in any other way sinister, to expect government to exercise some measure of control to minimize the worse. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone with an Enron 401K plan. Of course, government is not perfect either. But it's better than nothing. | |
| | | | | | | ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH | said by LegoPower77:
And just because you disagree with it, it's a rant.
You got it backwards: It's a rant, therefore I disagree
Look, I'm a lot closer to "Laissez-faire"(That's how it's spelled, really) Capitalism than I suspect you think I am. But corporate enterprise is not directed by some omniscient and infallible benevolent entity out there, but by flawed human beings, who through perfectly legitimate processes end up having great powers and great abilities to affect our lives, for better or worse. I don't believe it's morally objectionable or in any other way sinister, to expect government to exercise some measure of control to minimize the worst. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone with an Enron 401K plan. Of course, government is not perfect either. But it's better than nothing. | |
| | | | | | | | ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH | Re: ha ha My apologies for the double post, confusion on my part. | |
| | | | | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: ha ha no problem.
Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse  , but government is not omniscient either. They actually would know less about a certain market than the entrepreneur who is actually in the market. Regulation is not a panacea, it just changes the structure by throwing it to politicians who operate under different incentives but are self-interested just like the firms. I'd rather trust the latter because they're not gonna show up to my door with an arrest warrant for not buying their product (viewing a tax as a "purchase" of government service).
PS: the other one got pissed because of my tardiness in response, sorry, I was on vacation last week)
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan | |
| | | | | | | | | | ravitalJust Another Pesky Independent Nh VoterPremium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH | Re: ha ha said by LegoPower77:
I'd rather trust the latter because they're not gonna show up to my door with an arrest warrant for not buying their product (viewing a tax as a "purchase" of government service).
[For clarity, when you say "The latter" above you refer to private enterprise]
I pointed this out in my response to you on the other thread, but it is especially appropriate here:
You'll be happy to know that Adelphia (my ISP/Cable provider) is suing a good half-dozen towns in my area for refusing to commit to renewal of the franchise a year (and in some cases two years) before the franchise expires.
Won't show at my door with an arrest warrant for not buying their product? Really? They're showing up with a lawsuit. | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
 ·Charter
| said by LegoPower77:
You all are losing, you all all losing. Nah nah nah nah nah. We don't need nanny-state government to take care of us, you freakin' leftists.
you are obviously a very intelligent person. ...chuckle...
--
We'll be incredibly lucky to make it out of this decade without an attack that dwarfs 9/11 due to the current U.S. led war. | |
| | |  TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: ha ha Ambrose is correct of course.
The bigger the media giants get, the more alternative media is in demand, whether through books, magazines, flyers, internet, radio, television or good ol' fashion word-of-mouth.
As long of course as we continue to have the right to freedom of speech.
But the sheep will still always be sheep, whether there are 3 or 3,000,000 media outlets available.
Choosing begets choice. | |
| | | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: ha ha Yeah but their market position won't permit competition, especially with the same television media outlet owns the largest newspapers, magazines and book publishers...as well as the cable franchises. | |
| | | | | TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | Re: ha ha Of course, if you insist upon going to the major media outlets for your media, then you will continue to get your media from major media outlets...
While finding alternative media may not be as easy as hitting the power button on your remote control from the comfort of your big cushy couch, it is out there and it is more abundant and easier to get your hands on than it has ever been before. | |
| | | | | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Re: ha ha It's not EXISTENCE of alternative media, it's access to alternative media that needs protection.
Let's say for instance that Comcast strikes a deal for streaming video and music with say Launch.com while xyz.com offers video and music also. Are you okay with Comcast bandwidth throttling xyz.com in discourage people from using it in favor of their own service?
It's simply a "must carry" issue for broadband providers. I guess you guys don't think that cable operators should have to carry local programming either right? You guys think the "must carry" provision is a bad one?
It isn't always about news. It's about a company using it's market position instead of merit to compete. Funny, when it was Microsoft getting nailed for this restricted access tactics most here didn't have a problem with it. | |
|
| oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Guess we know the short yellow bus makes a stop in Fairfax. | |
|
oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | FCC Federal Consumer Cornholers
Thanks again for your wonderful anti-consumer position. | |
| | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: FCC Just sometimes, the more efficient market structure is one where there is *gasp* monopolistic competition. Which is what this market is. Note that it is not a pure monopoly, that would be if there were only one provider. Last I looked there are many alternatives.
But alas, in anticipation I will just say: "Bah!"
--
"Lunches don't get free just because you don't see the prices on the menu. And economists don't get popular by reminding people of that." --Thomas Sowell | |
| | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: FCC Monopolistic competition? What silliness. Skip ahead a few chapters then come back. But alas, I'll just expect yet another non-sequitur.
[text was edited by author 2003-06-30 12:10:27] | |
| | | |  SmokeyI'd rather be skiingPremium
join:2003-05-20
Wild West
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: FCC There is an element of truth there oilphant. We do not have a true capitalized market system. If it were than companies would be in a hurry to offer the best service. But when was the last time that you saw this? I think what Lego was trying to say was that if there is an monopoly of services offered, that can drive one to create a new service. Case in point, the whole RIAA debacle, college kids didn’t like the type of service that they were getting so they started there p2p service.
--
If there is any realistic deterrent to marriage, it's the fact that you can't afford divorce. -- Jack Nicholson | |
| | | | | oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: FCC This isn't about access to SERVICE. It's about access to CONTENT.
The people are arguing for is that a provider like Comcast shouldn't be able to block or limit access to sites run by Comcast's competitors.
People arguing for this protection basically are looking for a "must carry" provision that applies to these monopoly providers just as it does to video distribution.
IOW (as I stated in another post) you shouldn't have Comcast running say a streaming video site while bandwidth throttling a competitors streaming video site. Without an FCC mandate, this could easily happen to steer customers toward Comcast's revenue generating sites.
[text was edited by author 2003-06-30 13:12:32] | |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:4
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Lets Look at Historical Examples In deciding how to deal with this issue let’s look at the history of telephone service in the US to see if it provides any insight.
One of the methods AT&T used to crush competitors in the early 20th century was to refuse to connect to them – making them an island. To prevent this from happening regulators required non-discriminatory access. Anyone can connect at the edge of the network. Cisco got into hot water for proposing a 21st century version of this by telling ISPs they could use Quality of Service to advantage partners and handicap others.
Prior to the 1980s customers were not allowed to own or connect their own equipment it was rented from the phone company. This provided a lucrative revenue stream for AT&T and thwarted innovation. Cablelabs, the development arm of the Cable industry, is working furiously to integrate home networking into Cable service – thus being able to generate revenue and control each customer device.
During the early days of the Internet ARPA (now DARPA) went to AT&T, since they had the most knowledge about sophisticated networks, and asked them to participate in this grand experiment. They declined and had two major objections. They didn’t think packet switching would work and if it did they did not want to create a competitor. Innovation almost never originates from the incumbent – they are good at what they do and upstart technology is not as good as what they already have. New technology opens markets that does not yet exist. In the short term they are inferior to the status quo. Packet switching wasn’t better then the existing circuit switched network – but it opened the door to other services that could not be delivered over the old network.
Regulators enforced common carriage rules on the Telcos. Network was not limited to voice – as long as the customer meet the engineering requirements of the network they could send any type of information they wanted: voice, fax or data. Without the notion of common carriage the industry could treat voice, fax, and data differently.
Customers prefer predictable cost. To their credit telecom regulators required Telcos to offer flat rate service for local calls. This was fought tooth and nail because the industry wanted to charge by the minute.
The result of these telephone industry restrictions was to encourage experimentation. New services could be deployed using the telephone network. One of the reasons Internet adoption was so rapid in the United States is a direct result of telecom regulations. New services could use the existing network and the cost of experimentation was low.
Shifting to the Internet this begs the question is regulation needed? Do matters affecting the common good trump the rights of the access provider to control how the service is used? The Internet is a robust fault tolerant network so one can argue no single entity or group is able to control the Internet. In general this is true except as pertains to first-mile access – it is not redundant and is a scarce resource. Customers typically have few if any choice of first- mile access providers. This gives the carrier tremendous power to determine how the network is used. This does not have to be blatant all on nothing control. Even modest advantage to the privileged and modest disadvantage to the unprivileged will have a profound effect over the long term.
The question facing us is what, if any, limitations should be placed on first-mile access providers? | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
| | Another one This is another one of those issues that supporters will say just make sense but the practical application of such would be a nightmare. Would you say we needed a law that broadband providers could not block ANY content? Even something heinous like live murders? If you say only block some things, then who decides what gets blocked and what doesn't? The FCC? The same organization that gets ripped here everyday? Congress? Most people here seem to think Congress is all on the take. That's the problem with government regulations, there aren't many reasonable people working for the government. Put three Republicans and three Democrats in a room and whatever they manage to agree upon is guaranteed to satisfy no one. Leave the market alone unless you absolutely can't leave it alone. | |
| |  js
@cisco.com | Re: Another one Oh, come on. So you don't approach a problem because you think it might be too hard to solve?
I would sue Comcast the first time they altered one of my webpages mid-stream. It happened to Gator, and it will happen to them.
What it comes down to is copyright infringement. Comcast is using competitors' copyrighted webpages for their own personal profit. While Comcast certainly has the right to terminate service to any of their own customers for any reason (just read your ToS), they have no legal standing to modify data coming from upstream.
The right place to fight this behavior is in the courts, not the FCC. We don't need government regulation, the requisite laws are already there.
Anyway, this problem will disappear over time. Processor power is cheap and only getting cheaper, and you will see more and more pages are SSL'd by default, not just when you're typing in your credit card number. | |
|
| |
|
|
