Who Controls the Internet?
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-08/who-controls-internet
A U.S. appeals court has ruled that the F.C.C. does not have the power to force Comcast and other Internet service providers to give equal treatment to all Web content. What the ruling could mean for consumers and the future of net neutrality.
Guests
Ben Scott
policy director, Free Press.
Amy Schatz
reporter, The Wall Street Journal, covering the FCC and technology policy.
Kyle McSlarrow
president and CEO, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA).
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
This is a subject I am familiar with; I wrote the brief for NARUC in the NARUC II case cited by the Court in the Comcast decision and I represented Madison River in the FCC enforcement action alleging that it blocked VoIP traffic. The FCC has been using the "ancillary" doctrine for years to twist the Communications Act into a pretzel, and being called out for that is long overdue. Ironically, however, the regulatory theory rejected by the Court was peddled to the Republican FCC Chairmen Powell and Martin by the big Internet service providers, primarily AT&T and Verizon. What they want is the "gloss" of government oversight, but without any teeth. That certainly is not in the consumer's interest, because there is not enough facility-based competition to protect against anticompetitive conduct by the providers.
There is a solution under the current law, which is to treat the telecommunications component of broadband access as a regulated service and to impose certain nondiscrimination and related requirements on the provision of this service. It remains to be seen whether this Commission has the political will to take this step, because the big Internet service providers don't want the FCC to have any meaningful regulatory teeth.
Good faith of the companies...please!
Would we tolerate our phone calls being manipulated. Isn't this the same?
What if you have no choice of broadband provider?
Where is the supposed competition that would keep traffic manipulators in line?
dont put price on the bandwidth bandwagon. I all ready pay more for higher bandwidth. Net neutrality is not a money issue it is a control issue, but of course when we talk big business money is control.
If I recall correctly, Comcast denied that it was blocking BitTorrent and it took highly technical forensic research to expose the lie. This certainly colors the discussion, because users cannot generally tell whether their service is being bent by their ISP for its own benefit.
I can see charging different rates by bandwidth, but not by content. Should electric companies be able to offer different rates for electricity based on what brand appliances you use? That would be "electric neutrality." How is the internet different.
Your guest speaks glibly of a "regulatory regime". Your speakers have implied that "net neutrality" is some sort of push for "open access" or "free access" to the internet. It is not. It is "neutral" access to the internet. It is not some sort of push to keep prices down, or to restrict companies in their ability to charge more for access. Under net neutrality, if you use more you pay more - as would be expected.
Net neutrality means that the companies that sell you access don't get to decide *what* you access. They still get to control your bandwidth based on your payment - of course. It means that *publishers of content* don't get censored by companies that disagree with the publisher's opinion.
Would you let your phone company monitor and control who you call? Bill you more for calling their competitor? How about a $5/minute charge for calls to Sprint on Verizon's network? This is illegal... and should be. It should be illegal on the internet too.
The host's assertion that the internet business model is unique onto itself, is not truly accurate. RE: Cable TV subscriptions are based on a similar business model where the subscriber pays a fee for access (reception) for channels that he/she does not consume. Also, the subscriber is forced to pay for product even when the product is not being consumed i.e. the tv is off. The business model is based on consumption that the tv will be on 24/7 which is hardly the case in most homes. I would much prefer a metered approach to cable tv so that I would pay for only that which I consume, not the myriad of channels that I have no interest (or time) in watching.
Ben Scott drew a parallel between providing consumer/residential use of the Internet with comparable rights as commercial users.
However, commercial users actually pay more for faster speeds and improved quality in terms of obtaining backbone services. Why, shouldn't consumers also be required to pay more for more bandwidth beyond a certain, basic level if higher level of demand require companies to make significant additional investments.
Rob
Under net neutrality, consumers would still be required to pay more for more bandwidth. The guest speaker is deliberately misleading.
The discussion so far misses the point. Tiered pricing for Internet access already exists. If I pay more, I get a bigger pipe into my house, and it's easier for me to download bigger files. If I pay less to get a smaller pipe, it's harder for me to download big files. I pay more for my bigger pipe, and Google pays more for their bigger pipe. The increased fees ultimately make their way around the system and everyone gets paid for the increased bandwidth that Google and myself are using. So why is this a problem for the access providers? It seems like they want to charge twice for the same thing. I've already paid more for my bandwidth. How dare they tell me what I can do with it!
It is not necessarily that the internet is loved by Americans. It is now REQUIRED. Many companies expect employees, customers and suppliers to communicate via email. Telephone customer service is being curtailed. Invoices and bills are sent via the internet.
Schools REQUIRE students to research topice via the internet, because material for the assigned topics are not available, or minimally available, from the local school library or public library.
We the people are most assuredly NOT pleased with the current broadband situation. Not to name names (Comcast), but a virtual monopoly on local service has allowed what is clearly gouging by any reasonable standard. We're currently paying nearly $130 a month for "high-speed" internet access (actually, the rate varies and is often nearly grinds to a halt) and basic digital cable with no premium channels, HD, or DVR and one cable box. That's highway robbery and we have no viable alternative (Wowway looks more reasonable, but it's not available in our zip code). Broadband has become a de facto utility and needs to be regulated with regard to both pricing and access. The former must be reduced (free would be great, as is becoming the norm in other parts of the world--if that takes taxpayer support to install and maintain the network, fine--if we pay for the hardware we're entitled to reasonable rates to use it). Regarding the latter, it's absurd to allow ISPs to control website access (look at the controversy in mainland China regarding that!).
We the people are most assuredly NOT pleased with the current broadband situation. Not to name names (Comcast), but a virtual monopoly on local service has allowed what is clearly gouging by any reasonable standard. We're currently paying nearly $130 a month for "high-speed" internet access (actually, the rate varies and is often nearly grinds to a halt) and basic digital cable with no premium channels, HD, or DVR and one cable box. That's highway robbery and we have no viable alternative (Wowway looks more reasonable, but it's not available in our zip code). Broadband has become a de facto utility and needs to be regulated with regard to both pricing and access. The former must be reduced (free would be great, as is becoming the norm in other parts of the world--if that takes taxpayer support to install and maintain the network, fine--if we pay for the hardware we're entitled to reasonable rates to use it). Regarding the latter, it's absurd to allow ISPs to control website access (look at the controversy in mainland China regarding that!).
The telecommunications companies constantly complain about the investment they make in infrastructure, however, this is an industry that has enjoyed monopolistic power for a very long time. This monopoly power has more than paid for any of the investment and the actions of these monopolies was disastrous to the markets in general post telecommunications act of 1996. By granting these companies monopolies they owe the public whether they like it or not, otherwise take away their monopolies.
Ken mentioned one effective option - establishing that this is a regulated industry.
Another possibility would be to open the infastructure up to competition (as happened with long distance companies in the late 1980's and thru the 1990's.) Allow competition as South Korea does to stimulate growth and competition in the industry, rather than the stagnant business socialism through citywide cable franchises monopolies.
Thanks to the cable spokesman for a BIG laugh when he tried to claim that 2 companies = competition.
Just like in boxing!
My problem with the FCC ruling is that in my city, Louisville, KY there is only one cable operator (Insight) who operated under a city-issued contract. Insight is only company allowed to provide cable service in Louisville, so it is virtually a municipal service. I have a big problem with City Hall awarding a contract to a company that edits or favors some content over other content. Cable companies should have to give up their monopoly on city contracts if they discriminate against content providers.
I pay for bandwidth as a provider now. If I pay more, I get more bandwidth. Net neutrality is not about that. Net neutrality is about preventing political an social manipulation of internet access. I don't have "friends" at comcast who will help out my connection speeds. My competitor's parent is partially owned by the CEO of Comcast.... they will get preferential access for free.
This is not about money... it's about control and pushing out competition.
Net neutrality stops this.
The truth is, I'm better at greasing palms than most... and I'd probably benefit from a system which allows me to buy, beg or barter for preferential access to your house.
But it's not American, it's not good spirited and it's not fair. And that's more important to me.
WHEN/IF YOU THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!!!...
the emergent solution of no competition in ISP's seems simple:
As the USPS (United States Postal Service) becomes a public utility (a rescue from demise) the OPPORTUNITY of providing Internet Service can become the rescue as the industry becomes a player in the emergent service that displaced them. GO TO BED WITH THE ENEMY!!! Diversify by providing connectivity services@USPS. In other words. compete with telephone and cable companies and benefit by this growing market-share.
As a 21st century USPS@zip rises from the landfill emerging as a viable Public Communication/Information Service based Utility, RESCUED TAXPAYERS REJOICE as market share is claimed. The greatest volume of (potential) participants = minimalists. Reward for serving the under served=an advertising mecca = profitability)!!!
Along with other essential utilities (water/power), when applying cost based measures (regulated by Local Public Utility Boards), the desired Utilitarian objective results to encourage the best service at the lowest price.
WAHLA...
INTERNET QUESTION:
Since American "Tax Payer" money went to lay down cable, phone, and internet wires, don't we own the infrastructure?
The internet should be available to every citizen at a highly functional, basic level because we already paid for it! I lived in frontier rural America my whole life. Ten years ago I came home to find two men in utility uniforms, unmarked, digging holes in my back yard. They were burying fiberglass cable. For whom? They did not know or would not say. Cable was buried to every remote corner of this country and not a cent was paid back for the use of the public and private easements. I would still like to know how THAT happened!
Pardon a question ... be possible to know the name of the song with which began the section? ... listening to a trumpet and is very nice .. I will use it for a video presentation of a paper on internet related to its impact on our lives.
I appreciate a lot your help about this item.