FTC: All's Well in Broadband Land Urges caution with network neutrality regulation Tipped by caco 
The FTC today released a report (pdf) on broadband competition, which not surprisingly suggests a hands-off approach to regulating the sector. The agency had already hinted that like the FCC, they'd be taking a light regulatory approach. They argue that with network neutrality specifically, there is not enough evidence of wrong-doing to enact strict guidelines. The report comes on the heels of a two-day public workshop held by the FTC last February on broadband competition issues. At the time, a number of people noted the very clear lack of consumer advocates participating in the discussion. "In the absence of significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area," said FTC chief Deborah Platt Majoras in a statement. Verizon agrees.
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium join:2003-02-13 Stepford, CA 1 edit | Sure Well if Verizon agrees with the telco errand boys and girls in their employ, then it must be good for consumers in the same way the Black Plague was good. | |
|  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: Sure said by major marco:Well if Verizon agrees with the telco errand boys and girls in their employ, then it must be good for consumers in the same way the Black Plague was good. Always doom and gloom?

-- -- Internet News My BLOG My Web Page | |
|  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Surprise! The Big players say everything is fine, we don't need any regulation.
What a shocker.
Reminds me of "Evil Dead II" where Ash looks in the Mirror and says. "I'm Fine.... everything's Fine...."
.... and then his reflection leaps out, grabs him, and says "WE Just cut up our Girlfriend with a Chainsaw! Does that sound FINE to you?"
 -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
 rayePremium join:2000-08-14 Orange, CA Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| I am fine with minimal regulation But how about defining broadband as something resonable, like minimum 10 Mbps download, 2 Mbps upload?
This is a reasonalbe standard based on present and future web use. 256 kbps is fine for e-mail, basic web surfing and IM (the 1990's). We are evolving into a diferent world, and more various uses for communication. | |
|  |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: I am fine with minimal regulation said by raye:Re: I am fine with minimal regulation it is very slippery, this slope. you may get your 10/2 speeds, but without some type of regulation, [insert hated internet provider here] could limit your priority/speeds to 256k for those that haven't paid the toll.
that's the risk. | |
|  |  Time4aNAPPremium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL 1 edit | said by raye:I am fine with minimal regulationBut how about defining broadband as something resonable, like minimum 10 Mbps download, 2 Mbps upload? Sorry, but "minimal regulation" means that Big Business decides for you what constitutes "broadband". Don't like that? Then you're un-American, and invited to leave the country.
After 27 years of broken promises regarding "smaller government" and "letting the fox guard the hen house really does work", when will Americans wake up and realize that they have never been able to have their cake and eat it too? It's either one or the other, take your pick. With history as a guide, if you want minimal regulation, don't expect that to benefit you as a consumer. (Don't expect that to shrink government or lower your taxes, either.) If you want to have good broadband, then elect someone who will institute reform, and make your tax dollars work for you once more. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: I am fine with minimal regulation Where do you get 27 years from, this was been a clusterf*** before Reagan. It just wasn't that well known. And if you're looking at the Carter years as a prosperous time, well then your blind. While I agree that minimal regulation will spawn greed, as it has in the telecom industry, too much regulation has an equally stifling effect by having this already intrusive government bear down on land and business owners with tax and compliance burdens. I think the only true way to initiate reform is to mandate the employment requirements for FCC employees to include knowledge of the industry, not the lobbyist | |
|  |  |  |  Time4aNAPPremium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL | Re: I am fine with minimal regulation said by S_engineer:Where do you get 27 years from, this was been a clusterf*** before Reagan. Before Reagan/Bush (we all know who really ran that show) any clusterf*** was a regulated one. It was during the 80s that the agencies charged with consumer protection had all of their teeth pulled. And it didn't save a single taxpayer dime. The size of these agencies didn't shrink, and new bureaucracies like the RTC caused government in DC to blow up like a balloon. The Reagan Palace cost a pretty penny too.
And if you're looking at the Carter years as a prosperous time, well then your blind. Since that's O/T, I assume that you threw it in as misdirection. But since you did bring it up, it was Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker who brought the country out of the Nixon-era stagflation. Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" buttons didn't seem to do the trick. 
While I agree that minimal regulation will spawn greed, as it has in the telecom industry, too much regulation has an equally stifling effect by having this already intrusive government bear down on land and business owners with tax and compliance burdens. That sounds like it came straight from a GOP list of talking points. Let's examine it a little closer: Why is "this already intrusive government" so intrusive? The first so-called "Patriot" Act, and its super-secret Patriot II law, for the most part. Those two laws alone are the most intrusive in US history. They make the Reagan-era "war on drugs" laws that legitimized illegal search and seizure seem minor in comparison. And then there's Cheney's personal White House, that's operating entirely outside of the law. And then there's the NSA, the DHS, etc. etc. etc. Don't think for a minute that I'd trust those who broke their promises to fix their own misdeeds!
I myself, and nobody else that I know of is proposing too much regulation. So why even bring it up in the first place? For FUD? Sorry, but I'm not chasing any paper tigers when there are real Carnivores on the prowl.
And what about "tax and compliance burdens"? As a private citizen, I must pay my taxes, and stay in compliance with a host of governmental demands. My small business has even more. Why should Big Business get a pass? Because "it stimulates the economy"? We know how that ploy ended up! The biggest recession since the Great Depression. And since the trouble came from excessive borrowing, it appears that the tax breaks weren't the main stimulus after all.
I think the only true way to initiate reform is to mandate the employment requirements for FCC employees to include knowledge of the industry, not the lobbyist(.) At one time that was the case. I still remember when the Communications Act of 1934 (so forward-looking that it didn't need amendment for over 60 years) was actively practiced and enforced. Back then you would see actual FCC agents in the field, conducting oversight of broadcasters, and driving around town proactively looking for sources of RF interference. That can happen again, but the only true way to initiate that reform is by keeping the White House occupied by reformers for a long time to come.
Unfortunately matters like communications reform will have to take a back seat to the multi-trillion-dollar debt that our Treasury Department must pay back ASAP, so we don't end up becoming a province of Communist China. When America finally wakes up after the spree, the hangover will be long and painful. No getting around that one; we're at the bitter end of our rope now. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: I am fine with minimal regulation KO!
*applause*  | |
|
 | | Yep Yep, the American way alright... by the business, for the business, and no one else but the business. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: I buy a pipe... You have spent entirely too much time focusing on this quote:
said by Ed Whitacre said: : Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that
1)He's retired 2)No mention of tolls. 3)He's an idiot. Not an evil mastermind. 4)They'll never enact a "Toll" system | |
|  |  |  Mactronel Camino RealPremium join:2001-12-16 CM94sv | Re: I buy a pipe... Fairy Tales Can Come True. It can happen to you.  | |
|  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus 1 edit | Ed might be gone, but you can bet that his idea is still getting serious consideration in ATT's upper management.
Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ?
edit - typo correction -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ? edit - typo correction Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly? | |
|  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:said by bmn:Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ? edit - typo correction Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly? The whole concept of creating a system whereby you will allow some websites or services to perform slower or more poorly than others... Either pay up or the services you offer will be degraded. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:said by RJ44:said by bmn:Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ? edit - typo correction Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly? The whole concept of creating a system whereby you will allow some websites or services to perform slower or more poorly than others... Either pay up or the services you offer will be degraded. Ah, that. The way I understood it, they were planning to create a system whereby those desiring a higher grade of QoS could pay extra for it if they wished.
Somehow, those two concepts don't exactly sound the same in black and white do they? Isn't perspective a wonderful thing?  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:Ah, that. The way I understood it, they were planning to create a system whereby those desiring a higher grade of QoS could pay extra for it if they wished. When you raise the QoS level of one traffic flow, you negatively impact the performance of another traffic flow.
So by raising the priority of one flow, you make another flow perform poorly meaning when website A pays for better performance, website B will suffer a performance hit because they didn't pay up. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:When you raise the QoS level of one traffic flow, you negatively impact the performance of another traffic flow. So by raising the priority of one flow, you make another flow perform poorly meaning when website A pays for better performance, website B will suffer a performance hit because they didn't pay up. I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. You seem to believe that offering something better than "best effort" classes of service means they will allow "best effort" to go to hell in a handbasket. I tend to believe that won't happen because if it did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and end up losing more money than they're trying to make.
That attitude is very similar to believing that FedEx ground sevice started taking longer once they began offering overnight. I'm sure it would have, had FedEx not increased their resources enough to cover it. But that's exactly what they did. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. Actually, QoS ONLY takes affect during congestion, when routers have to make a decision between packet A and packet B. If there is no congestion, QoS has no effect because the routers and switches will forward packets at wire speed.
The funny thing is, if company A is going to buy QoS service, it would require the company they are buying it from, say Bob's Internet, to admit that his network is overloaded.
The impact of QoS on an uncongested network is absolutely minuscule.
Which raises the issue... If the providers are pushing for QoS so hard, how overutilized are their networks that they are willing to go through the effort of deploying such a harebrained scheme to make cash instead of investing in more capacity?
You seem to believe that offering something better than "best effort" classes of service means they will allow "best effort" to go to hell in a handbasket. I tend to believe that won't happen because if it did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and end up losing more money than they're trying to make.
That attitude is very similar to believing that FedEx ground sevice started taking longer once they began offering overnight. I'm sure it would have, had FedEx not increased their resources enough to cover it. But that's exactly what they did. See, the problem with the FedEx analogy is that FedEx's overnight delivery operation flows through a different set of drivers, vehicles, sorters, scanners, etc. By FedEx offering overnight service in such a manner, there is no way that their ground service would be impacted because they have separated it out.
A better analogy would be where overnight and ground packages are all delivered via the same driver on a busy route that can only be run by one driver, once per day (analogous to a fixed bandwidth pipe). You would have a situation in which ground packages would constantly get bumped off of trucks for packages that are being shipped at faster speeds because they HAVE to get their on time. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:said by RJ44:I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. Actually, QoS ONLY takes affect during congestion, when routers have to make a decision between packet A and packet B. If there is no congestion, QoS has no effect because the routers and switches will forward packets at wire speed. That's exactly what I said. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:said by bmn:said by RJ44:I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. Actually, QoS ONLY takes affect during congestion, when routers have to make a decision between packet A and packet B. If there is no congestion, QoS has no effect because the routers and switches will forward packets at wire speed. That's exactly what I said. Right, but if you read on, you would see why I reiterated the point... Why the push for QoS unless the providers are pushing their networks too far ? And if they are pushing their networks too far, that definitely should make business customers think twice about using them. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:Right, but if you read on, you would see why I reiterated the point... Why the push for QoS unless the providers are pushing their networks too far ? And if they are pushing their networks too far, that definitely should make business customers think twice about using them. It's very simple. Because "stuff" happens to the best of networks. And if I'm offering real-time services, I want them to stay real-time even when a fiber gets cut or a router goes down or something causes everyone in the country to jump on their pc at the same time...and I'm willing to pay for that security. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:It's very simple. Because "stuff" happens to the best of networks. And if I'm offering real-time services, I want them to stay real-time even when a fiber gets cut or a router goes down or something causes everyone in the country to jump on their pc at the same time...and I'm willing to pay for that security. QoS will not fix routers flapping or fibre cuts. Those situations are solved by properly configured routing protocols. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:said by RJ44:It's very simple. Because "stuff" happens to the best of networks. And if I'm offering real-time services, I want them to stay real-time even when a fiber gets cut or a router goes down or something causes everyone in the country to jump on their pc at the same time...and I'm willing to pay for that security. QoS will not fix routers flapping or fibre cuts. Those situations are solved by properly configured routing protocols. Are you intentionally missing the point? Because if so I will be glad to stop discussing the issue. If not, please back up and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:Are you intentionally missing the point? Because if so I will be glad to stop discussing the issue. If not, please back up and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear. Are you missing the glaring obvious point that I've made. You are overestimating the ability of what QoS can actually do for a network.
I'm sorry you can't take being corrected due to your unfamiliarity with QoS, but seriously...
I KNOW the point of QoS on a network and I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of QoS... However, you are clearly missing the point that QoS is limited in what it can actually provide. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN | Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:said by RJ44:Are you intentionally missing the point? Because if so I will be glad to stop discussing the issue. If not, please back up and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear. Are you missing the glaring obvious point that I've made. You are overestimating the ability of what QoS can actually do for a network. I'm sorry you can't take being corrected due to your unfamiliarity with QoS, but seriously... I KNOW the point of QoS on a network and I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of QoS... However, you are clearly missing the point that QoS is limited in what it can actually provide. And you, with your great knowledge, repeated my statement that QoS only makes a difference in situations when a network is congested. Except the way you said it you thought you were correcting me. Then I listed a few of situations that can cause congested networks for you, since you asked, and you completely missed the point. And now you're lecturing me because you think *I* don't know what I'm talking about?
Make up your mind. Either way, I'm done talking to a closed door. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:And you, with your great knowledge, repeated my statement that QoS only makes a difference in situations when a network is congested. Except the way you said it you thought you were correcting me. Wow, a mind reader... That must not be working out for you too well since you are way off on that one.
Then I listed a few of situations that can cause congested networks for you, since you asked, and you completely missed the point. And now you're lecturing me because you think *I* don't know what I'm talking about? And you missed the point of what I replied with. But hey, if you think you know it all, that's fine. Free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Make up your mind. Either way, I'm done talking to a closed door. And I'm done talking to a closed minded poster who ALWAYS posts the Bell party line and never has an independent thought on this issue... -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|
 |  |  Time4aNAPPremium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL | "Toll" is probably a bad word to use, since it implies things that aren't applicable here. Certainly nobody is going to institute an omnibus "no Internet for you" toll that denies them backbone access...wait, that's exactly how it works for the lower tier ISPs. Bad example. They couldn't get away with charging different rates for different data rates...no, that is indeed what ISPs do, whether you're a home user or colocated in the same building as a major peering facility. So never mind that one as well. . ...
Hmmm, what is all the hubbub about, then? It seems like the Tier 1 ISPs are proposing to do the same thing that everybody else has been doing all along. What's the big deal about that?
Well...I suppose that it could be a double-edged sword. A competitor could pay your upstream provider to starve you of bandwidth. Of course you'd be able to monitor that, and threaten to sue, and people could go to prison for things like that, so it's not very likely. I guess that when you get right down to it, it could be a top-down way to implement much-needed QoS protocols on the Internet. Yes, the corporate giants would be able to buy the fastest access, but aren't they doing that already, by physical diversity and BGP?
For services like streaming media and VoIP to become mature and reliable enough to replace their channelized forebearers, some sort of QoS needs to be implemented. And if it cost the same no matter what QoS level you chose, everyone would pick the highest priority, and the system would fail to accomplish anything. When's the last time you used `nice' (or Windows' "START") to voluntarily lower your priority on a multiuser system?
Yes, it means that it will cost more to make VoIP calls, and to send real-time media streams. But the upside is that your VoIP phone will sound no different than an ILEC-connected phone (and still save you money), and webcasters will be able to boast rock-steady streaming, just like their broadcasting cousins, but without the possibility of RF interference. That's worth paying extra for, isn't it?
The only possible downside that I can imagine at the moment would be related to expansion and consolidation. Without some form of regulation, backbone providers will have a financial incentive to add capacity only to its higher-priority, higher-revenue lines. Even worse, they could shut down the less-traveled paths that are essential for the lowest priority traffic, and for the continued robustness of the Internet as a whole. So somewhere in all of this, a "must carry" rule that links the privilege of charging for QoS with the community responsibility to deliver all packets that come their way.
If the phrase "must carry" has a familiar ring to it, it's because similar situations have arisen on other kinds of networks. It's old-hat for the FCC. It can be done in a fair and equitable way. After all, when NSFNet went away in 1995, who noticed? | |
|  |  |  |  Ahrenl join:2004-10-26 North Andover, MA | Re: Ask Not for Whom the Tolls Bail Well, net-neutrality isn't (or shouldn't be) about dis-allowing QoS. It's about telling those with government provided monopolies that they can't prioritize their own services to the detriment of their competitors. (which is kind of what you said, but in the extreme)
So they can offer VOIP QoS and mutli-media QoS for a fee. They just have to offer it to everybody. No extra special VOIP for their service, and everyone else's VOIP uses that QoS that every 5 seconds is de-prioritized for a half second to below best delivery data.
The government provides the regional wireline monopolies through restricted ROW space (by necessity, I/we don't want 10,000 networks strung on our poles), so they have a responsibility to make sure that the service arms of the network maintenance owners are playing on an even playing field with those firms that the government prevents from competing in the wireline network business. Otherwise it's really just another tax, because we won't have a choice. | |
|
 Time4aNAPPremium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL | (Covers Eyes) "No, No Problems Here!" If voters get their act together in 2008, the FTC's new Top Boss could be one who will demand reform from the laissez-faire policies of the far-right wing. Even then we aren't going to see any real change in this decade. I can wait, but when it comes, I expect to see some monopoly-busting whoopass going on.
As for network neutrality, somebody in DC had better face the fact that the USA is no longer the center of the Internet. If US business is allowed to adopt policies that are rejected by international Internet authorities, we could end up isolated from the Internet as a nation. We could also find ourselves back to the AOL / Compuserve / Prodigy era, when it comes to national networking. That might be good news to the reactionary, who still views the fax machine as leading-edge technology. But for the rest of us it could really suck. | |
|  |  openbox9 join:2004-01-26 Alexandria, VA kudos:1 | Re: (Covers Eyes) "No, No Problems Here!" said by Time4aNAP:I can wait, but when it comes, I expect to see some monopoly-busting whoopass going on. Good luck with that.said by Time4aNAP:As for network neutrality, somebody in DC had better face the fact that the USA is no longer the center of the Internet. If US business is allowed to adopt policies that are rejected by international Internet authorities, we could end up isolated from the Internet as a nation. What policies would you be referring to? | |
|  |  |  Time4aNAPPremium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL | Re: (Covers Eyes) "No, No Problems Here!" said by openbox9:What policies would you be referring to? I'm not. See how the sentence starts with the word "if"?
It's all theoretical right now. No US backbone provider has done more than complain about how "unfair" unmetered peering is (and done a few dirty tricks), but have yet to agree on a payment system, much less the dreaded SLAs. | |
|
 | | third world nation Seriously the US is quickly heading to a third world nation. Does a third world nation really need a high speed internet? Better to spend our money on teaching our kids to learn top pick crops. Think about it. | |
|  bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus | By the time harm is shown by providers... It is going to be too late.
The FCC is waiting for some sort of harm to show up before creating NN regulations, however, once that harm shows up, its going to be too late. The providers, whether cable or telco, will find some way of making what they are already doing, be it prioritizing one site over or another for money or something else, legal and anything beyond that illegal.
As they say, one the genie is out of the bottole, it is hard as hell to get it back in.
Sometimes you need to take the initiative and create protections before the harm exists. This is one of those times.
I mean seriously, we already have ISPs injecting ads into people's web sessions without their consent, other providers munging DNS and yet another threatening to filter "pirated" material even though they are going to have a hard time telling legit and illegitimate content apart... No one techie worth their salt can argue in favor of any of those.
Yeah, no harm... Talk about the FCC being out of touch. -- Prove it... Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post |
 | |
|
|