FCC to regulate broadband

[TheBigA]

To quote Shania Twain, they "gol darn gone and done it." Even though Congress disagreed, and even though there are many in government who say they're overstepping their bounds, the FCC on Friday voted down party lines to grant itself authority over regulating broadband. Read how it was covered in the NYT Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/business/18fcc.html?hpw

The Washington Post provides some commentary in their reporting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/06/reactions_to_fccs_latest_step.html?hpid=sec-tech

As the article says, the FCC drew its power from the linkage between broadband and phone service. So I guess that means that the internet is now defined as a common carrier. The FCC was clear to point out that they're not going to be heavy handed in their regulations. But there is a question if they should be involved in the first place.

They're accepting comments on the decision, and I'm sure that Congress will weigh in at some point. The FCC isn't doing much to win friends on the Hill.

 

[TexasTom]

Why shouldn't ISPs be considered common carriers? As a practical matter, that's really how we use the broadband services that they offer -- to connect to websites of our choice. The ideal ISP is one that provides a reliable connection and then lets it's subscribers use that connection as they see fit, to connect to whatever websites or services might be of interest.

That's a huge difference between a service (such as a broadcaster) that creates content or otherwise demonstrates some sort of editorial control over what they distribute.

So, really, it looks to me like the proposal by the FCC to redefine ISPs as common carriers seems to be far more logical than the prior decision (from 2002) by the FCC that defined them as being something other than a common carrier. And note that the decision that they'll be overturning was one that was made by a prior commission -- so this hardly seems to be a case where the FCC is overstepping it's regulatory bounds.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Common carrier designation is a best-case scenario for broadband. Do you really want Comcast or other ISPs determining the content of what flows over your Internet connection? Do you want them determining what sites you go to, or redirecting you to a "preferred" site when you type in a URL?

It sets the stage for Internet connection companies to bill based on consumption. People who move more bits, either upload or download, will ultimately pay more money. The common carrier model is the basis of net neutrality, which the FCC has embraced. Next up is extending broadband service to underserved areas. Guess what? People in densely populated areas will pay more so people in less densely populated areas can pay less. Extra profits from profitable areas will pay the cost of services to unprofitable areas.

 

[TheBigA]

That's fine, but there are a lot of copyright owners that want ISPs to get into the police and collection business for them. A common carrier doesn't discriminate between copyrighted content and stolen content. That's more of an issue in broadband than in POTS.

Also some net neutrality advocates don't like tier pricing. They don't want to pay more because, for example, they have their own server. There are a lot of issues here, and if you read the published comments, you'll get a sense of the complexities.

 

[TexasTom]

Common carrier status wouldn't impact tiering or metered service. Consider the quintessential common carrier service, which is landline telephone lines.

Back in the days when most households had landline telephone service, there often times were multiple tiers of service available -- the unlimited local calling that most of us had was the most popular option, but I do remember a couple of cheaper options that offered limited free local calls above that limit metered.

For a variety of reasons (including net neutrality), I believe that common carrier status for broadband services is both logical and beneficial to broadband users -- but I don't believe it would end the possibility of metered service.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

It would be good if the FCC fined those who send unsolicited smut,
Trojans, and Viruses. I am for freedom. But, it's not bad to get
the FCC involved because things are getting out of hand.

Also, certain providers would love to disable your Magicjack
software.

 

[techie2]

Also, certain providers would love to disable your Magicjack
software.

Yep, that's some of what started this was the cable and phone companies looking at ways to mess with VoIP traffic, to discourage users from getting phone service other than the company's own brand.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Here in the Atlanta Metro area there is a lot of "push and shove" as the cable companies (Comcast in my exact geography) push to get ALL of your business and the phone company (AT&T in my exact geography) push to get all of your business.

I'm old enough that I continue to give the phone people credit for their superb record through the decades of making phone service as bullet-proof as possible and sometimes I am in denial about the trend that says the phone company is changing technologies and in the future (and maybe already) no longer will offer the same level of reliability.

I continue to give the cable people credit (blame?) for their spotty record through about two decades, maybe three, of giving a delightful service when it is working, but let some motorist thump a pole along side the road, or let a lightning strike take our power in your neighborhood and watch your cable service to "Pfffhhhttt". (There are some sentences that work best in AUDIO rather than print1)

Comcast has me on some kind of list where I get the same call every 10 days now asking me if I have considered consolidating ALL my communications needs with one company for the BEST service combined with the BEST pricing. So far my best efforts at anti-social linguistics have not succeeded in getting myself off that 10-day calling cycle.

But yesterday afternoon a little disruption illustrated what scares me. I am watching the podium on TV where any moment now the president will stand to announce what will be the fate of general who was called on the carpet yesterday morning... and my TV goes blank and silent. No static, no noise like we associate with typical TV outages. This one TV is on digital delivery. Two other TVs in my house are on analog delivery. I run to the other room and confirm that the cable is still working, I can watch in fuzzy, noisy analog if the do not remedy the problem quickly.

And while I am sitting their coming up with insulting comments and names for Comcast that even my Sunday School teacher would not veto, it dawned on me. What if I had accepted one of their numerous sales calls and moved my internet service, my phone service over to the cable company with my video services.

How do you CALL the cable company to report that your video is dead, if your phone is also dead? How do you E-MAIL the cable company to report that your video is dead if your Internet service is dead?

I don't care what business, what industry, what form of government you may work in.... redundancy of systems is good management.

Now, let's funnel all this down to the topic of this thread. If the moves at the FCC could be interpreted as a "full government takeover" of broadband, then I too would be complaining and protesting. What I hope I am seeing is just enough government oversight to keep any one corporation from gaining so much takeover of broadband that we can be the victim of a "SHAKEDOWN" where we have no practical choice but to put all our eggs in the basket of that one company. That is not good for the consumer any day of the week. That is not good for the community on days following tornadoes, floods or earthquakes. That is not good for the country when an entire corner of the nation is "on the ropes" because one communications company becomes the next Enron or the next General Motors in the bankruptcy courts.

 

[TheBigA]

Yep, that's some of what started this was the cable and phone companies looking at ways to mess with VoIP traffic, to discourage users from getting phone service other than the company's own brand.

I just bought a new computer, and discovered it was normaled to use Bing search and all Microsoft products. My iPhone was set up for iTunes and other Apple products. Go into the Google network, and you're discouraged from using anyone else's products. So why shouldn't Verizon do the same?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just bought a new computer, and discovered it was normaled to use Bing search and all Microsoft products. My iPhone was set up for iTunes and other Apple products. Go into the Google network, and you're discouraged from using anyone else's products. So why shouldn't Verizon do the same?

Making it easy to use commonly owned and developed product is appropriate. Making it mildly difficult to switch to your favorite software or other vendor is mildly anti-social but an accepted part of our economic system.

Here is where I get off the wagon and start building barricades across the road to get some political attention. If I use AT&T as my Internet vendor, and they obtain the power to have their computers monitor my line and if they detect that I am viewing a video from some other source that AT&T offers for sale and they implement a mechanism that BLOCKS me from buying that product from another vendor, I might even stoop to walking the picket lines with the Tea-Party crowd. If I choose ComCast as my Internet vendor and they block me from using their "pipe" to view movies from other vendors, or block me from buying from i-tunes instead of some music store set up by ComCast, then I am going to be writing my congressman and asking whatever happend to the concept of "public utilities" in this land of Free Speech.

 

[TheBigA]

If I use AT&T as my Internet vendor, and they obtain the power to have their computers monitor my line and if they detect that I am viewing a video from some other source that AT&T offers for sale and they implement a mechanism that BLOCKS me from buying that product from another vendor, I might even stoop to walking the picket lines with the Tea-Party crowd.

Isn't that what cable companies are doing with channels owned by competitors? People in DC can't watch their local baseball team on cable because the channel isn't owned by Comcast.

How about instead of blocking you from buying the product, AT&T instead bundled their product in a way that made it cheaper to buy from AT&T? They might not want to block you from using a competitor, just make it more expensive. Better?

 

[TheBigA]

Today, I received a bulk email from Jim Urie of Universal Music. He represents copyrightholders, who want the ISPs to take a active role in policing the internet for music piracy. Here's a brief excerpt from his email:

Governments outside the U.S. are legislating, regulating and playing a prominent role in discussions with ISPs (Internet Service Providers). Sales have dramatically improved in these countries. How is it that the U.S. – with the most successful music community in the world – is not keeping up with places like South Korea, France, the UK and New Zealand? As I said in my speech, I hope that the industry can negotiate a voluntary deal with the ISPs. We need our government representatives to encourage this.

Only one problem: He's asking ISPs to become copyright police. That is counter to the goals of net neutrality. The government supports net neutrality.

My question is: Why does the music industry want the US to be more like other countries?