FTC: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Workshop on broadband tackles network neutrality
by Karl Bode 12:28PM Wednesday Feb 14 2007 Tipped by AthlGrond
Speaking at the first day of an FTC workshop on broadband competition (you can catch the webcast here
), FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz lamented the lack of quality discussion on the issue of network neutrality. "It seems to me that each side listens to the other side sort of just enough to mock it,"
said Lebowitz, whose previous post was at the MPAA. Lebowitz called the fight a "battle of dystopian worlds"
and voiced his desire for a middle ground. FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, meanwhile, has made it clear that she's of a deregulatory "market based"
approach (aka do nothing
until an egregious violation occurs).
The FTC's somewhat pedantic desire for everyone to play nice
when billions of dollars and fundamental freedoms are at stake aside, it's not clear whether the workshop will actually result in any substantive policy change. A "hands off"
decision (the most likely) is fundamentally a win for incumbent providers and network hardware vendors like Cisco, who are eagerly pushing their new profit vision
: prioritization and "personalized toll ways"
) aimed at subsidizing infrastructure build outs.
According to the FTC agenda for the workshop (available here
in pdf format), yesterday was largely consumed by discussion of tiering, network neutrality and other prioritization concerns. Today the workshop focuses on broadband competition and consumer protection issues. As we previously mentioned
, the FTC hopes to address misleading marketing terms such as the "up to"
| |batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
Re: no subsidization of private networks
said by morbo:Ahhha Utopia, how wide are the tubes on there back-bone.
absolutely no tax money should go to support subsidization of private
infrastructure. any money should go toward equal access infrastructure with telco's having to get in line just like any Joe Schmoe's ISP. yes, I'm talking about YOU, AT&T. see Utah's UTOPIA for a guide.
| |pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
Mount Airy, MD
Nothing Wrong With Current Approach Hopefully the FTC will discuss "Net Neutrality" as the two separate things that it really is, and not attempt to confuse people by mixing the issues:
Currently ISPs are sanctioned when they block access to a particular service.
No one seems to have a good reason for banning companies from building their own private networks to offer their own services. If people think these services are worth it, they will pay for them. If not, then its the company investors left holding the bag if the project fails. Why should this be of any concern whatsoever to the government?
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
| |POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
Re: Wait and See
said by openbox9:Exactly which potential issue are you referring to? If Net Neutrality does not become a reality, then essentially, all bets are off. The telcos want to double dip so they make up all sorts of fictions about NN, that is the bottom line. If NN does not constitute a potential issue in the world according to you, then apparently you haven't been paying very close attention.
Regulation is not required for a problem that doesn't exist. If/When such a problem arises, reevaluate the situation at that time. I should think that the FTC has larger, more prevailing problems to deal with than this "potential" issue.
| |POBRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
Re: Wait and See
said by openbox9:Do you even understand what is at stake in NN debate? I seriously doubt it b/c it. But nm, I'm not going to participate in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Move along now...Go back to watching Fox News.
When I said "potential" issue, I was referring to one that hasn't come to pass. There's a lot of hype on both sides of the fence on what will/won't be done in regards to "net neutrality" (the term in and of itself has many meanings and is vague at best). The real bluff is that ISPs to date, haven't double-dipped and haven't prioritized their traffic over other providers' traffic in an anti-competitive nature (except for a couple of rare occasions that have been corrected). So what exactly would you propose be regulated that is NEEDED
right here and now?
Re: Wait and See Yeah I mean it's not like ISP are:
providing nebulous service under unstated terms... oh wait
throttling traffic in whatever way seems fit to them... oh wait
are basically a geographically oriented monopoly/duopoly... oh wait
intent on squeezing as much money out of customers as possible without regard to making broadband available to the masses as any real UTILITY should be... oh wait
always seeking financial aid for infrastructure buildouts that they then turn around and cry pauper when any kind of open system legislation is attempted... oh wait
have continuously lobbied against communities setting up their own systems that fulfill net neutrality requirement based on nonsensical and outright fraudulent claims... oh wait
Shall I continue?
The issue is FREEDOM Net neutrality came about simply because the dumb ass ceo's of the megacorps SAID that they wanted to double dip. Look back at any of their past comments, and you can see why people get so riled up. WE, the customer, see NO ADVANTAGE in that proposal. WE, the customer, PAID for the internet. We, the customer, DEMAND that we get what we paid for.
What did we pay for? Bluntly, I am paying for a pipe that is x/mb/sec. I expect it to provide me with an IP address, and that's IT. PERIOD. I don't want AOL. I don't want COMPUSERV. I want an IP address, that can get to any other ip address, at the speed I paid for.
What they are proposing? They are saying that I pay based upon how much they think they can charge me. They want to charge me if I download a video from utube. They want to charge me more if I use google to search. They want to charge me more if I download a movie.
Guess what, that's NOT what I'm buying. I pay for a pipe. I expect that pipe to run at it's specs. I pay based on the SIZE of the pipe, NOT what I use it for.
Net neutrality is required simply because what we pay for isn't what the CEO's of the megacorps think we should be buying. We KNOW what we want, and we WILL use the law to enforce it.
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
Re: The issue is FREEDOM You pay for a commercial product that is subject to change at any point in time with sufficient notice from your provider to amend your contract (there is an implied month-to-month contract when you pay for any service). The provider should be held accountable to provide what was sold in accordance with their current terms of service (this is a separate issue). If you don't like the conditions of service provided to you, find a different provider.
Net neutrality legislation is not required at this time. Do you know of any provider that "double dips" or prioritizes their traffic over a competing service's traffic?
Re: The issue is FREEDOM But nothing has been implemented. Do people not realize that legislating things that aren't broken more often than not tends to make situations worse. Less government is usually better Not to mention, I'd rather my tax dollars go towards things that are broken.
listening to both sides Hey, my perspective is that the backbone carriers and ISP companies are free to workout any agreements or arrangements that they want.
However, from a consumer perspective, any company filtering content, prioritizing packets, blocking ports or engaging in selective DNS practices SHOULD NOT LEGALLY be allowed to call themselves an internet service provider.
To clarify, this should mean that they cannot even be allowed to use the word internet in their advertising.
If I were the FTC, I'd look to some internet standards committees, if they aren't certain of what the defintion of internet service should be.
For me, it's a matter of honest representation of goods and services being sold. Don't represent a service to me as the internet, if it's really a distortion of what has come to be known and expected as a unified, equal network.
You know any politician with an incline to WIN ANY ELECTION could simply commit to introduce and support legislation to shore-up internet law, SECURITY, PRIVACY.
It is amazing to me, that at this late date and time, there are so many people without access to broadband or even basic internet service.
We need to recognize the internet as a core component of our social and economic success and status as a technological leader in the free world.
We are lagging. If you will excuse the pun. And the internet is looking more and more to be the only hope for our democratic processes and self-determination.