From the WSJ:
Even HuffPo thinks this is a bad idea:
According to all reports, the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow’s FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet.
The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it’s become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.
You and I are one of those tens of millions. So the immediate question: With this newfound power, how long before it mutates beyond original scope, and websites that are critical of the government begin to be shut down, or simply IP throttled out of meaningful existence?
I would imaging that site like this one would be a target, since we don’t report what the government line on climate change is.
I can only imagine the future where I’ll be typing some story, like this one, and there will be a knock at the door and
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We oldies who watched the birth and growth of the Web will be forever grateful to those many talented people who gave freely of time and effort to make it happen.
We look less kindly on those who seek to profit from the work of their forebears, either by taking money or by imposing control.
The success of the Web was in part due to its large component of not-for-profit input. It should be run again on that basis.
Jeff Alberts says:
December 21, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I’m not sure I see the problem here either. Nor do I see why some are complaining about others using all “their bandwidth”. If your ISP isn’t providing what you’re paying for, complain, or get a new ISP. It’s kind of like saying “all these people on the highway are in my way, keeping me from going as fast as I want.” It’s not YOUR internet, it’s everyone’s.
I used to have Satellite internet. Horrible. They would cap me at 100mb downloads for a certain time frame. I was working from home, sending and receiving large documents, applications, etc. 100mb was nothing. Now I have cable internet, I can send and receive gigs without an issue. So you guys want to go back to capped speeds and bandwidth? No thanks.
========================================================
But that’s exactly what you’ll get with this new reg. Only it will be termed as an opportunity to buy a higher tier. Yes, it is everyone’s highway. But the “highway” can only handle so much traffic. There simply isn’t enough bandwidth for everyone to watch movies all day. The question is, do you want the market to handle it? (As you suggested.) Or allow the FCC to step in and start regulating.
Anthony, I’m an equal-opportunity basher, and I’m just as scared of big business as I am of big government. Here is what I fear from big business… http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1317019~f59bf2e4638e2aa86535cb84516a3861/netneutrality.jpg Do you think that people would ever find your site under that scheme, or that they could see it for any amount of money?
Let’s face it, phone companies have been sleazy since day 1. Do you realize why *A FUNERAL DIRECTOR* by the name of Almon Brown Strowger invented the automatic telephone exchange in 1888? Seems that his business was suddenly dropping. It turned out that the local telephone operator (cue strereotypical image of woman plugging in patch cords) was the wife of a competing funeral director. And she was pushing potential customers to her husband’s business. The idea behind the Strowger Switch was to remove the human factor.
Phone and cable companies, if left to their own devices, would shut down the internet as we know it, and re-create a bunch of expensive AOLs. WUWT as we know it today would not exist in that world.
REPLY: I’m with you, but this regulation is a “foot in the door” for Big Guv, and that’s the big worry. – Anthony
Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Australian Federal Labor Government has internet filtering (censorship) on his to-do list also. Seems it’s a preoccupation with these open and accountable Leftist governments?
Re James Sexton says:
December 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Great comment James, well articulated. I suppose who determines what “net nutrality is, is the question. I can see this easily expanded beyond simple bandwidth issues. Does anyone find problem accesing whatever they wish on the net now?
Jeff Alberts says:
December 21, 2010 at 10:14 pm
“… So you guys want to go back to capped speeds and bandwidth? No thanks.”
Your righ Jeff, I suppose when the govt makes us all equall, it is always to the lowest common denominator.
I think what some people are reacting to is not what it appears the regulation is about but what we have a hunch it is really about.
High Anthony,
I can no longer leave you a note @ur momisugly Tips & Notes to WUWT. WUWT?
Are you “regulated” already or have you reached your maximum capacity? (LOL)
Anyhow, this is the link I wanted to leave at Tips & Notes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
If you want some insight into what this is “really” about, I would encourage you to do a little research into two individuals, Marc Loyd and Cass Sunstein. Marc Loyd (a Marxist) is currently the “Diversity Czar” in charge of, wait for it, the FCC. Cass Sunstein, of course, is the author of “Nudge”.
This is all VERY calculated. I am not worried about the Internet. Fortunately, these people are complete techno moron’s and have no idea that they are several miles behind the eight ball on this one, however, this is NOT designed just for the Internet. This is only the first step. This IS the proverbial “nose under the tent”. This is just another “nudge”. You will see in the coming year, this will begin to spill into radio and TV but with a much different twist. You see, after you “nudge” something, you begin to move it along. It may not start out as what you want in the end, but it will twist and morph along the way until it is exactly what you want. That is how all of the things this administration has enacted work.
Ask yourself this, how many 2000 page bills have passed during this administration? How many of those 2000 page bills have been read? Who the hell is writing these 2000 pages bills? Do you really think Reid and Pelosi actually wrote those bills? Hell, those two idiots can barely tie their own shoes, let alone write 2000 page legislation.
No, this is yet another setup. It is just another piece of the “framework”. Did you know there are already provisions of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality written into the 2000 page stimulus bill? Did you know other parts of the framework were crafted into the 2000 page Obamacare bill?
I’m not so much afraid of what the FCC thinks they can or cannot do. Nor am I afraid of the FCC even having the ability to regulate the Internet (they can’t). I am much much more afraid of what the left hand is doing and what is going on behind the smoke and mirrors. Folks, there is something much bigger brewing. They need this diversion to distract you away from something else. Keep a watchful eye, this is the MO of this administration since day 1. Just think back and recount the events of the past 2 years. What has ALWAYS happened whenever some kind of news like this hits the wire? .. keep your eyes open!
Eric, if you think “free reign” by your provider is going to bring you the high speed you desire, you’re wrong. And if you think that poisoning legal bittorrent downloads and blocking competing VOIP services will do it, you’re even more wrong.
A common carrier system would be more likely to get “fat pipes” to you than the present “carriers in charge” or the newly-approved “regulations with loopholes” approach. Think back to the time when dial-up with the only Net access available. There were probably multiple companies offering access, even in small towns. If one decided they didn’t like your use of AOL’s instant messaging client, you could switch carriers and continue without missing a thing. And people were paying extra to have dedicated lines. This equals extra revenue to the line owner, which motivates them to add capacity.
On the other hand, having the wireline owner and the service provider as one company will (simply by virtue of accounting rules) make it more profitable to offer a minimal “high speed” service, then charge for add-ons like VOIP, video-on-demand, or unimpeded downloading. Make no mistake, that’s where the money appears to be when customers don’t have choices (which is why your provider won’t invest in bringing you fatter pipes). When customers do have choices, then the money is in offering the fastest connections and the highest data caps, and letting other companies provide the bait that encourages them to use and pay for faster connections and more data transferred across those connections.
The answer is quite simple … do some research on Marc Loyd, Diversity Czar and head of the FCC. That will be all you need to know.
More assaults on freedom around the corner:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-prepares-executive-order-indefinite-detention
Fortunately the USA has the world’s largest army and it’s not under Government control.
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/12/worlds-largest-army.html
The concept of free armed citizens has its sense.
I don’t see any problem with limiting bandwidth as part of a tiered service, though I wouldn’t like it as a consumer. But any speed or data limits should be applied blindly to all types of communication.
You will not find a better example of insidiousness, a hidden danger. Evil lives here.
Interesting to read the range of responses from the user perspective (as opposed to the political reaction) here. We have similar dilemmas in Australia – in densely populated areas, people can just change their provider if they are unhappy with the speeds they are getting, but the choices diminish dramatically elsewhere. If more bandwidth is needed, the market will generally provide it, as it is a paying proposition.
As the amount of content increases, the bandwidth and consumer choice issues outside large towns and cities are getting to be more and more of a problem. It is aggravated by the increasing dependence of people in less populated areas on the net for everything from shopping and paying bills to education services for their children.
If people in country areas are to have decent services in the long term, some sort of intervention is required. What the best way to deliver that outcome is would be one of the most hotly contested questions in telco policy. (Disclaimer: I worked as a telco policy analyst for many years).
I won’t presume to enter into a discussion about what the US should or should not do, but here is a comment from a local blogger which raises some questions that perhaps someone here could answer. In particular, why are wireless services excluded – is it because they are an unimportant component of the market? It seems odd, as we all know what happens when too many people are trying to use their cellphones at once – the service just falls over. Also, since the telcos I have dealt with are experts at gaming regulations, it will be interesting to see what sort of ‘specialised services’ they come up with and how it affects the general user.
” … the new rules include two gotchas. Great big ones.
One, the Network Neutrality rules only apply to fixed-line broadband providers. “Mobile broadband is an earlier-stage platform than fixed broadband, and it is rapidly evolving,” the FCC says. “In addition, existing mobile networks present operational constraints that fixed broadband networks do not typically encounter.”
So the FCC will take “measured steps”. They’ll leave wireless operators to continue doing their own thing and “monitor” them for transgressions. That’s a very small measured.
Two, telcos aren’t completely banned from creating separate fast lanes. They can declare certain kinds of traffic to be a “specialised service”, for example — something that’s somehow different from access to the open internet — and give it priority. Vague definitions leave plenty of wriggle-room in other areas.” (h/t Stilgherrian)
Brad said “This is a GREAT idea, the FCC is FOR net neutrality, or in other words STOPPING Comcast and the rest for not allowing streaming movies to your home.”
If you don’t like what Comcast does, don’t subscribe. If you want the government to run the internet, then vote for the socialist party or whoever promises you the best free lunch. There are just those two choice, it is that simple.
Jeff Alberts said “I’m not sure I see the problem here either. Nor do I see why some are complaining about others using all “their bandwidth”. If your ISP isn’t providing what you’re paying for, complain, or get a new ISP. It’s kind of like saying “all these people on the highway are in my way, keeping me from going as fast as I want.” It’s not YOUR internet, it’s everyone’s.”
If there are a choice of private internet providers like you say, there is no need for government regulation, if you are willing to pay to be a bandwidth hog, then there’s nothing stopping you from getting your own dedicated microwave or fiber.
I used to have satellite just like you and there is a need for caps that you and I used to hate. Otherwise people would not have connectivity due to bandwidth hogs. The providers are again the logical choice to do this, not the government.
W^L+ said
On the other hand, having the wireline owner and the service provider as one company will (simply by virtue of accounting rules) make it more profitable to offer a minimal “high speed” service, then charge for add-ons like VOIP, video-on-demand, or unimpeded downloading. Make no mistake, that’s where the money appears to be when customers don’t have choices (which is why your provider won’t invest in bringing you fatter pipes). When customers do have choices, then the money is in offering the fastest connections and the highest data caps, and letting other companies provide the bait that encourages them to use and pay for faster connections and more data transferred across those connections.
Your argument seems to be that government regulation is required to attain a common carrier, like the government breaking up AT&T so that other companies could compete. But it is in fact the original government regulation that allowed AT&T to consolidate in the first place. One difference now is that we have ulterior motives for wanting new controlling regulations.
Most of us have choices in carriers now and those customers who want a neutral carrier can do their homework and get one. It is simply laziness or a sense of entitlement to ask the government to do so. Those of us in rural areas are glad that our carriers throttle the bandwidth hogs and should do it more (except for our handful of mostly ignorant bandwidth hogs).
johanna said “If people in country areas are to have decent services in the long term, some sort of intervention is required. What the best way to deliver that outcome is would be one of the most hotly contested questions in telco policy. (Disclaimer: I worked as a telco policy analyst for many years).”
Johanna, I am in the rural U.S. My problem is very simple: bandwidth hogs. I know some of them and in fact they complain to me that they not are allowed to hog enough bandwidth! I ignore them because they are so clueless that explaining will do no good. I am glad for whatever caps my wireless carrier can place on them. I have no wired choices except for dialup and no other wireless choices except satellite which has terrible latency.
The bottom line is my private carrier can respond to my needs without regulation or yield to a new one (there are 4 or more). If they decide to let the bandwidth hogs run wild, then I will switch and I am already close to that point.
Sorry, the last post should read “they complain to me because they are not allowed to hog enough bandwidth”
[I facilitated an edit for you… bl57~mod]
Ahmedinejad throttles the ‘net in Iran, Obama throttles it in the US of A.
Obama=Ahmedinejad or thereabouts.
Shall you USAans accept this lying down? You have saved the world from tyrants three times last century, for which we europeans shouls be thenking you for the next melleniu8m, now you got a semi-home-grown tyrant in your own bedroom, being supported by strange American bedfellows. Throw him out before it’s too late, for the good of the planet. And I’m even admitting that I am being egoistic, because what happens in the USA eventually seeps down to the farthest corners of the planet, including me and my family in that tiny island in middle of the mediterrenean sea.
It’s really wonderful to see the comments here and people just expressing their concerns about free flow of information and access to that information.
The concerns of bandwidth shaping are legitimate concerns. And as others stated, because they call a bill net neutrality, it doesn’t mean in fact that’s what it’s all about. So often these things mean the reverse!
I mean if the legislation is so full of Swiss cheese and exceptions, it amounts to not really protecting individuals but results in the reverse.
And to be fair, as a few people noted, there is a requirement for some of these network pipes to be managed by the owners and those companies that run them. I can agree to some of this and I see this need. However, this becomes a VERY serious matter if done wrong.
And the idea that our Government or even industry will look out for our interests is a laughable positation. I mean it was GE that has the LARGEST funding of lobbyists in Washington in regards to supporting control of carbon emissions and CAGW.
In places like China, because the major Internet pipes are controlled by the government, ANY packet with text in them such as Tiananmen Square are simply deleted out of the data stream. This really gives the government a easy way of shutting down any site they please. Now of course there is no question that you can install some types of tunneling software that often gets around these government restrictions, but for the VAST majority of users this control is sufficient.
The result is for most consumers and most people, the Chinese government achieves its goal of restricting information on the major Internet pipes of their country .
It’s a little bit naïve to think that the governments and powers that be will not attempt to make efforts to control the Internet. The China example shows that a level of control is quite a bit higher than most of us realize.
Current polls show Obama is suffering about the worst in public opinion polls, and much of this do is likely reading about this clown show on the Internet. I mean we’re certainly not getting this terrific information from the mainstream media anymore which is become near useless.
Recall also that the climate gate emails were leaked to the press and virtually nothing was done (imagine that!, the newspapers sat on the climate gate story and did nothing). However, that information on the internet was gasoline + fire! Who can’t remember last year at this time. This was truly a remarkable spectacle to be a witness of.
Al Gore is an special adviser to Google. Remember in the week after climate gate, the spin and damage control was turned up to maximum volume. Here’s a video I made a Google in that week after climate gate. It is the FIRST TIME that Google had a link on the FRONT PAGE that when clicked on would instantly play a video of Al Gore. I’m pointing this out, because just like mainstream media, search engines and the like are also targets of these miserable wretched socialists.
video here:
Note that for the video to run I did NOT do a search., I DID NOT TYPE anything at all. I simply touched one mouse click. This is not a huge deal, but I have to admit I was shocked and Google NEVER HAS done this before or since. So, one mouse click from the front page of Google and we get a video of AlGore spearing out propaganda? I mean sure, ok if I do a search, then this is just fine! But I did not even touch the keyboard here!
One click from the search engine = Al Gore???
What is next? Perhaps searching for WUWT does not appear? Recall Lord Monkton threatened legal action against Google when his site was misty released late push down to about the two 100th position, and everything before his site was for the most part JUST JUNK. Right after the threat of legal action, his site magically ALL OF A SUDDEN moved back up to where it was!
So, if something so large as a fraud as CAGW can be fostered on the public, it would be rather native on peoples part to think that such goals and games would not be played with the internet and our freedoms in this regards.
Again a warmhearted thank you to all hewre and especially that of our host Anthony Watts who toils away and creates this wonderful site for all of us to enjoy .
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Thank you Mr Moderator/Editor! I should explain in a little more detail of where I am coming from. There are just two ways to provide decent service with a limited resource like our rural 3G: cap total usage per month (or perhaps shorter intervals) or throttle services that hog bandwidth. (If there are others, I would love to hear about them!) For the first method, it solves almost no problems. My service is still terrible while the BW hogs run wild, then it gets a little better and some BW hogs get nothing and tie up the customer service lines complaining that the measurement was incorrect. They are amazingly wrong and clueless (usually they don’t realize their kid is doing major downloads or something like that).
Second method is for the carrier to throttle BW hogging services. That brings up the potential problem mentioned by several posters: what if the carrier has a competing version of the same service, and they throttle their competitor to favor their own? That is also of course the government’s argument. To answer the government argument, one merely has to read squidly’s post above. To answer those who don’t like their carrier’s crappy and costly version of VOIP or whatever, I say: the internet has always routed around such nonsense and is getting better at doing so all the time.
If your carrier is blocking your independent VOIP provider, then get a different one or better yet, ask your VOIP provider to provide service that can’t be blocked. Your effort will pay off because you will be the only person on your block with decent VOIP while everyone else is using the carrier’s awful VOIP. In the meantime I will choose a provider which is most like a common carrier (i.e. provides no VOIP) and instead provides BW without the hogging services. It will always be an effort to keep up with that (both on my part and the providers) but that’s both the beauty and requirement of the marketplace: I have to expend effort to get the best value, but if I expend that effort I get the best value. The alternative is quite simple: the government runs everything and provides the service most comparable to North Korea’s.