WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2009
(AP) The head of the Federal Communications Commission plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday.
U.S. to Propose 'Net Neutrality' Rules
FCC Reportedly Will Propose Rules Prohibiting Internet Providers From Interfering With Free Flow of Information
The reports said the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announce the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
The proposals would uphold a pledge President Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign to support Internet neutrality - the equal treatment of Internet traffic. That would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks.
Without strict rules ensuring Net neutrality, consumer watchdogs fear the communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as TV shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with services the ISPs offer, like cable television.
Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.
"This is about whether I can turn off my cable TV and watch TV over the Internet," said Dave Burstein, editor of the DSL Prime broadband industry newsletter. "Comcast cares about this because they don't want people to turn off their cable TV."
The FCC adopted four principles on Internet policy in 2005. Two years later, it said it would study the business practices of high-speed Internet providers and consider whether a principle of nondiscrimination in traffic should be added.
Burstein thinks the FCC probably will adopt a fifth principle on nondiscrimination as part of the expected new rules.
The FCC's existing net neutrality principles have focused on high-speed Internet access delivered over wireline systems. But Google Inc. and other big technology companies, as well as consumer advocacy groups, have called for rules that would require wireless networks to be similarly open to all devices and applications.
UBS analyst John Hodulik said extending the principles to the wireless arena is going to be "a bit difficult because the regulation of wireless is very different than the regulation of the wireline networks, where the FCC has played a much stronger role."
"In wireless, these companies typically have paid billions of dollars to buy licenses ... and now operate in a very independent market with absolutely no government subsidies or government involvement," he said. "So it would be a new era of regulation for what is a very competitive market."
But the rules' effectiveness "really depends on the details," Hodulik added. "These could be just relatively vague rules that prevent obvious forms of discrimination, like blocking a Web site or mowing down the packets from a competitor's service."
The proposed new rules were reported by The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
"We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy," Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at CTIA, a wireless trade group, told the Post.
The FCC began wading into the issue even before Genachowski became FCC chairman. Last year the FCC rebuked Comcast for blocking or delaying some forms of Internet file-sharing. Comcast agreed to stop the practice.
Comcast and Verizon representatives did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
Add a Comment See all 48 Comments
- JTolivar... You say we are Obamessiah brainwashed, but your not brainwashed by Limbaugh, Beck & Fox News? Sorry, you & the rest of the neocons cannot have your own way all the time. So get used to it! While where at it, let's bring back the fairness doctrine. Who the hell was Reagan to get rid of it in the first place!
- Reply to this comment
- by JTOlivar September 20, 2009 11:19 AM EDT
Ahhhhhhhhh, put downs by the Obamessiah worshipers...I am crushed...JUST CRUSHED!!!!
ROFL! Ya'll actually think anybody gives a spit about your little put downs?
========================================================
Well if you see them as put downs and feel the need to express that you don't give a spit, that
is indicative of someone who actually IS offended.
But then again, Rowdy, some people are just slow. - Reply to this comment
- So some people are posting that Bush was the champion of internet neutrality? That is a major reason why I voted Democratic. If we lost freedom on the net we lose our freedom. To say Bush and the Republicans are champions of net neutrality is a totally false statement. Beware the Obama haters and their lies.
"The Bush Administration has come to the aid of GOP Hill leaders who are desperately working to derail network neutrality legislation. Federal Trade Commission Chair Deborah Majoras has just announced plans for her agency to explore the network neutrality issue. The message from the Bush White House via Ms. Majoras is clear: Congress shouldn?t be concerned about the need to restore the Internet?s neutrality, now that the so-called consumer watchdog FTC is on the case." - Reply to this comment
- "Supernova 2007 A San Francisco tech show degenerated into a shouting match today, after a pugnacious Bush commerce official squared off with heated supporters of net neutrality.
John Kneuer, the assistant secretary for communications and information, quickly lost his temper and began shouting back at Supernova 2007 attendees after taking flack for saying the free market - not government intervention - would protect internet innovation and access."
And yet somehow people are posting on this board that GW Bush is the champion of net neutrality and that Obama is taking credit for it.
Now that's what I call a laughable fantasy.
The Obama haters just post what they wish were true instead of the truth and some people actually believe it.
The real issue of net neutrality was one of big corporations getting together and blocking sites for small businesses and others who post their views. As an example, someone puts up a site exposing FOX news lies, FOX news contacts a big sponsor who provides internet service, the sponsor basically shuts down that site by making it so slow no one goes there and quits providing service altogether.
That is not the worse case scenario you can imagine others.
The biggest threat to our freedom now would be control of the net and what we can say.
That is why EVERYONE was against Bush dropping the rules EXCEPT the big corporations and the wealthy who controlled Bush and the Republicans.
Bush REMOVED net neutrality laws for the big corporations to give everyone else the shaft and put us more under the control of the wealthy and corporations so if the Obama haters want to pretend he did not, than that's fine with me.
Go-Bama, Go! - Reply to this comment
- You mean after all that money the big corporations spent on bribes through lobbyists, and Bush and the Republicans doing away with that rule that was opposed by everyone connected with the net, Obama is going to make sure that everyone is treated equally on the internet?
You mean the tens of millions of Americans with high speed internet will not be bumped for Wal Mart and other big corporations when it comes to routing and speed they pay for?
There goes Obama again, undoing another one of Bush and the Republican controlled Congress's sell outs to big corporations and another Obama campaign promise is kept.
Where does Obama come off thinking that the people control our country and not corporations?
Bad Obama, bad Obama, bad President, now go to your room!
LOL - Reply to this comment
- Well there goes the whole Republican idea of the internet. Next they'll say you can't tax it. These free information liberals, how do we control minds now? Can Rupert Murdoch start his own internet?
That would be a true American patriot thing to do. How about this, let the leader of the party, Fat A** Limpnuts decide what people see on the net. All Hail Rush the Segregator..... - Reply to this comment
- charlie6378 September 19, 2009 11:05 PM EDT posted: "How can you tell the difference between restricted access and congestion?"
Finally, a question I can answer. See, restricted access is when I can't pick my nose in public. But, congestion, well, that's when I can't breath through it. - Reply to this comment
- All across the US, millions of Americans are paying profoundly, trying to use e-mail protocol such as Microsoft's Outlook Express. These entrepreneurs are actually receiving electronic mailings from clients everywhere, all over the world. Because scrupulous Agency is actually intercepting and blocking e-mails, free communication over the Internet is not possible, like it was also not possible for the parties people to make any money on the Internet. "We do not think that Microsoft is totally the culprit here," says a current executive at Gigglygoo, Incorporated, a maker of highly trigonometrical, Copyright integral Data Structures, and/or Inverse Algorithmic - Microbiological Triangulation Probability, who's company filed for Bankruptcy during a prior administrations technological industrialization. Also stating " scrupulous Agency is not allowing the free communications in order to nourish a business culture via e-mail, and they are intercepting electronic mail we believe we are getting from all over the world." In that sense, e-mail when it is working is worthless, and also the fact that computers in which, besides fundamentally the majority average American at least don't understand, are hurting economic hopes for many White House families, like Capitol Hills from everyplace. Plus also think of all the dates from everyplace America's kids and grandkids probably could have had.
- Reply to this comment
- If only the FCC can makke their proposals stick for a change...
It is crucial! - Reply to this comment
- by charlie6378 September 19, 2009 11:05 PM EDT
How can you tell the difference between restricted access and congestion?
================================================
Ever been constipated? Versus passing a cannon ball? - Reply to this comment
- I have access to AT&T, TImeWarner and Charter in the course of my workday and personal computing at home. Because I know how to check, I know that one of these providers hinders HD quality from Youtube. I won't say which one, but the legislation is needed to guarantee unrestricted traffic flow. The FCC is doing it's job.
- Reply to this comment
- Please raise your hand if you personally have ever had an ISP deliberately and intentionally block your access to anything (not illegal) on the internet... or even if it's happened to someone you know personally.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Here! (raising hand) A lot of times you just don't know you're being restricted or denied access. This bill is designed to eliminate discrimination between carriers.
- Lawyers-Guns-n-Money September 19, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
Here! (raising hand) A lot of times you just don't know you're being restricted or denied access.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then how do you know you are being blocked deliberately?
I know for a fact that the nations third-largest telecommunications company DOES NOT block access to legal content by any customer, unless that customer violates the terms-of-service agreement. That works out to less than 0.5% of its customers.
I don't call myself the cable guy because of a stupid Jim Carrey movie.
- I worked as Tech support for a local ISP and I stand with the Cable guy on this. As I told another hard head earlier.
"For your info, The Government has "absolute total control" of the Internet if they wish it. They can turn it off at anytime, read every 'packet' sent from every computer through every ISP in America.
The strangest part of all this, They don't... for the most part, they leave it alone and only monitor those communications covered by 'Legal Warrants. The FCC has given rules for content and that is the extent of the FCCs control. Other countries have different rules and enforce them differently"
ISPs do not censor your viewing in the USA. (they do in China,N.Korea and a number of tother countrys) Poeple ought to be thankful for the way ours is handled (yes, there is room for improvement). FYI. A busy internet will show as a good signal but limited to no 'connectivity'. That is not the ISP stopping you, that is cause by too many people on at the same time. The ISP cannot handle the input so what you end up with is like trying to drain a swimming pool through a 'soda straw'.
- From http://www.ncta.com/IssueBriefs/Network-Management.aspx?view=3
Won?t Internet Regulation protect consumers?
There is no evidence that consumers are being prevented from accessing any lawful content on the Internet, nor are broadband providers impeding customers from subscribing to broadband applications that don?t harm the network. The best consumer protection is a vibrant marketplace in which choice for providers exists and allows subscribers to switch if they're not satisfied with the current service. The biggest risk of Internet Regulation is that it will freeze investment and innovation in further broadband deployment and development.
How would Internet Regulation affect investment in broadband?
Crafting Internet Regulation to correct a problem that doesn?t exist is a task fraught with peril. Even assuming appropriate regulations could be written ? and because this is an area of rapid technological change, that assumption is unwarranted ? they would still lead to uncertainty as to their actual application. They would also lead to the creation of a new bureaucracy to apply such rules and add layers of additional costs for dealing with the regulations and bureaucracy.
Such costs might be undertaken were there real world problems that needed government intervention to remedy. But again, where no one has yet identified such problems, where such regulations would likely increase costs and stifle innovation, and where there is a vigorously competitive marketplace, there is simply no reason to take such an enormous risk.
If this legislation is such a bad idea, who?s behind it?
Some of the loudest proponents of Internet Regulation are large companies, like Google and Yahoo!, that are seeking to lock their market dominance in place. These companies flourished in large part because cable operators, telephone companies, and wireless providers have invested billions in building a broadband infrastructure that supports their business model. Now that they have achieved a leadership position in the marketplace, they want to foreclose any new business model that would enable new entrants to challenge them. The reality is that companies such as these, which may have started as entrepreneurs and innovators, have gotten so large that they cling to the status quo. - Reply to this comment
- I probably look at this from a different perspective than most, given my occupation.
"Net Neutrality" would indeed prohibit ISPs from blocking or slowing any kind of data, except of course data the government wants blocked.
But don't be fooled that it sprang from some altruistic reasoning. It didn't. There was talk some years ago about big commercial websites being offered priority over other data, so that the given site would always load quickly for customers of that ISP. All for a large price, of course. That didn't set well with the likes of EBay and Google, among others. They envisioned bidding wars, where they would basically have to pay for priority. One can only imagine what kind of money could be demanded from a huge ISP for guaranteed eyeballs.
So... Net Neutrality sprang from large corporations looking out for their pocketbooks, not the desire to give you unfettered access to to the internet.
Large ISPs, like Comcast, ATT, or Cox, have invested huge amounts of money in their networks. I know a lot of you will remember dial-up service being a big deal, not that long ago. Now we have access to networks with massive data-carriage capabilities right in our homes. Do you think your $40/month made this incredible leap of technology possible? If Cox could pass some of their costs on to the commercial websites, they might be able to lower the rate your grandma pays for basic cable. Then the websites could split that up among their customers, who are actually using the majority of the bandwidth.
Follow the money. - Reply to this comment
- Yep Obama's a pretty cool guy.
- Reply to this comment
- WOW. A govt for freedom. I cant believe it.
- Reply to this comment
- Well hoorah for Obama that he is continuing the positive Net laws that were started...Oh, when was it? Yea, 2005, with a follow up in 2007. So yes be thankful he is on the bandwagon but come on, let's not be yippy skippy over Obama on this - it didn't come from him but from the previous administration. And can we be thankful that he is on the go go go for healthcare? Sure. But that ball started rolling with Kennedy, not Obama. He is the 'face' of the nation, as were most presidents in position in the past 30 years but he has no power. Congress and the Senate - which btw are majority democrats, have the power.
- Reply to this comment
- by JTOlivar September 19, 2009 6:05 PM EDT
Not only no, but heck no, stay away from the internet. I pay for it, not you. 'I' get to decide what comes in and out of it.
===============================================================
A ruh-tahrd.
A what?
Ruh-tahrd! - Reply to this comment
- Wheres all the republican extremists bashing Obama over this. I am sure they'll be making their usually stupid insults.
They certainly won't be here praising Obama! - Reply to this comment
- Wow...I get so used to people Washingtonian only doing things if they benefit the right corporations that I am...well, shocked when something that is positive for the American people comes out of that payola nee natural swamp.
- Reply to this comment
-
- Like I said earlier and it's still true!!!
"Relax people, Like all good thingas that must be granted by the ones that will be replaced by it, this will never
go any farther than "Speculation on a News Forum!!!
Sorry!!!!"
- Like I said earlier and it's still true!!!
