Although we posted a “visual guide” to the net neutrality issues at large some of you may be more interested in some of the “guts” of it.
So, you can definitely see those, all 194 pages of it! But, if you want some of the top bullet points, here they are as well:
- Transparency: The order will require broadband providers to “publicly disclose accurate information” about their network management practices, the performance of their services and their commercial terms. The goal is to provide information “sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services,” the FCC said in a press release.
- No blocking: The rules will prohibit wire-based broadband providers from blocking legal Web content, applications and services. The order will also require broadband providers to allow harmless devices to be connected to their networks. The no-blocking rule is subject to reasonable network management.
- Exemption on no-blocking rules for mobile broadband carriers: The order does not prohibit mobile broadband providers from blocking some Web content and services, but it does prohibit them from blocking services that compete with the carriers’ voice or video telephony services. The FCC will monitor the mobile broadband industry for signs of anti consumer behavior, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.
- No unreasonable discrimination: The rules bar wired — but not mobile — broadband providers from unreasonable discrimination against legal network traffic, with reasonable network management again the exception.
- Exemption for specialized services: Specialized, or managed services, are exempt from the rules, for now, the FCC said. The FCC will monitor the broadband industry for signs that providers are hurting the public Internet or acting in an anti competitive manner by pouring more resources into specialized services, the FCC said.
- Paid prioritization of Web traffic: Any commercial agreements between broadband providers and other companies that would allow providers to prioritize some types of Web traffic would likely violate the prohibition on unreasonable discrimination, the rules say. Those types of commercial agreements would “raise significant cause for concern,” the FCC said in its press release. “This departure from long-standing norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet.”
- Complaints: Broadband customers and providers of Web applications and services will be able to file informal complaints through the FCC’s website, without paying the normal fee for formal complaints. Customers and others can also file formal complaints after notifying the broadband provider. The FCC will allow requests for expedited action on complaints.
Now comes the opinion.
I might be one of the few people you’ll find around here that is 100% opposed to net neutrality. I am happy that the courts will most likely strike these rules down (an appeals court already ruled earlier this year the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the Internet).
I know people say, “Oh but the Internet should be free and open!” which sounds great. But the fact of the matter is, I don’t want the FCC getting their bureaucratic fingers on what is undoubtedly the most important technology the world has had access to in the last 30 years.
In every day terms, I am going to lay out the problem with net neutrality. ISP’s manage their networks and despite problems from time to time, they still do it pretty well considering.
But here are the problems:
1. The internet will be “open” which means, the providers will not be able to manage how much bandwidth one is using. If somebody is downloading a video and somebody is merely sending an email, the rules would dictate the ISP could not manage that bandwidth. It would be the equivalent of telling the fire department that the same amount of water has to be used to put out a house fire and also to put out the fire pit in the house next door.
2. The current rules may or may not provide for this, but it’s something that proponents want put in place and that is the elimination of tiered services. Again, the Internet should be “open” so everybody should have the same bandwidth. It means, Grandma in one house who uses the internet to do some banking and send emails should pay the same as Johnny up the street who is downloading ripped Xbox games. It also means the doctor who is trying to download an MRI gets no more bandwidth than Grandma no matter how much more he pays.
In the private sector there are any number of services we pay more for in order to get more access or choices – first class vs. coach on an airplane, next day services vs. ground service on packages, premium cable channels vs. basic channels. Why should Internet access be any different? I pay more for my Internet access than my brother in law who doesn’t use a computer all that much. That’s a good thing.
The new rules also provide exclusions for wireless carriers and uses very subjective language. What is “reasonable” and “unreasonable” to one person may be completely different to another. Not to mention the FCC would then have the ability to do to the Internet what they’ve done to network television and terrestrial radio. That should be enough to scare anybody away.
Thoughts?
Graham says
I will admit that I never really gave this topic much attention. From the little I’ve read about it up to this point it seemed like a good idea to me to keep the internet “open” and “free”. But your point is well made. What scared me the most was that people were screaming that innovation would fall away because nobody would have access to anything. I don’t really understand what they were screaming about there… I mean… isn’t Google still going to rule the internet? I’m fine with that by the way.
JayCaruso says
Those opposed to net neutrality argue that over time, more and more government control will be exerted over the Internet to the point where those with money to spend won’t because the possibility exists there could be no return on that investment. Hence, innovation is stifled as a result. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen.
Adam Shields says
I have some concerns but not yours. My concerns is the mixing of interests. It seems that regulations cannot be written in Washington that do not have significant influence by the people being regulated. To some extent that makes sense because those that are being regulated have some interest in the regulations. But if self regulation isn’t working now, then allowing the industry to write the regulations will not make it better.
I am confused about your concern #2. I think you are mixing two different tierings. One type of tier is the amount of data you get into your computer. In most cases in the US except for mobile that amount is unlimited. The other type of tiering is the speed at which that data is communicated to you. That tiering is the difference between me paying $29 for 6 MB service to comcast and $49 for 25 MB service. I honestly don’t think anyone is debating consumer tiering of the second type. Business tiering of the second type is the netflix problem that Comcast and Level 3 are fighting about. My opinion is that if one business is paying for the amount of data to get through and then charging a second time for the speed that the data gets through, that can be reasonable.
The problem comes in when the group that is transporting data is also creating the data and competing against the other data creators. That is where I think regulation can be helpful. Making sure that the sides of the business don’t create monopolies where content creators must be owned by a distributor of data in order to be able to afford to get their bits out to the people.
I think a lot of the problem really comes because there are default monopolies at the consumer side. Most areas do not really have competition between multiple cable/DSL/4G/etc. If they did then at least on the consumer side, if the ISP starts blocking or slowing down traffic of the type of data you consume, then you move to another ISP that does not. But practically, most areas only have one or two options and there is not enough competition to allow people make their voice known with their pocketbooks.
JayCaruso says
Adam, good points as always.
As for #2, net neutrality enthusiasts claim since the Internet should be “open”, no “tiered” pricing should exist and also claim that ISP’s will start charging not based on bandwidth but rather content. $9.99 will get you access to email, CNN, Fox News, etc. $19.99 gets access to that as well as YouTube, Facebook, etc. $29.99 offers access to….get the picture?
For a potential solution, you hit the nail on the head and it is part of the reason why net neutrality is a such a joke. The government is saying they will save us from a situation they themselves helped to create which as you say is the local monopoly on service.
The government is who tells Verizon they can’t offer me local phone service where I live. I HAVE to get it from AT&T. That’s it. Same goes with Internet access. Verizon FIOS is not and will not be available where I live right now. It’s either Brighthouse or AT&T. Those companies argue (falsely) that they bore the brunt of the expense for installing the infrastructure that other companies should not be allowed to offer servies over that same infrastructure. These companies neglect to tell people that tax breaks and promises of exclusive access were made for that to have happened.
That’s where we need to focus. Creating a more competitive environment amongst providers would alleviate any temptation by ISP’s to throttle their systems.
Adam Shields says
Part of this is a government created problem with cable and telecom monopolies. But also state, local and federal jurisdiction issues. Local regulate cable, state regulate (or have significant influence over) telecom and then the FCC wants to regulate net neutrality.
I still think the paying per content is not a net nutrality issue (although I know some want to include it). I think again if that gets included it will be the industry writing it in. The ISPs know that the money comes from content. The delivery system is not where the money is. So they want to control the content not just the delivery. I am afraid on both sides about content control. On the net nutrality side, I am afraid that industry written regulations will allow or encourage the mixing of content and isp so that there is per use charge (which is what content creators want. They want you to have to pay per article that you read or pay for paywall access to their sites.) But people do not want to pay for that. So I think there will be a major consumer backlash if FCC or industry tries to push for that.
On the other hand, those that resist net neutrality also tend to not want any regulation over monopolies (this isn’t a Dem/Rep issue any more). And as the companies get larger and oligopolies get formed where all content (or most content) gets created in 5 or 6 companies and 3 or 4 companies control the backbone and those companies start buying one another, then there is real danger that the lack of neutrality regulation will start affecting the delivery mechanism.
Frankly I think we are screwed either way. Because the regulation will do the wrong thing if it does get written and if it doesn’t get written things as they are going will create problems as well.
Jayvie Canono says
Opinion 1: “The internet will be “open” which means, the providers will not be able to manage how much bandwidth one is using.”
Disagree with this conclusion. In fact Comcast is well known to manage their bandwidth against network-intensive protocols such as bittorrent. “Net neutrality” is not bandwidth neutrality, it is content neutrality. I’m not necessarily a fan of the FCC or Congress micromanaging the net, but when ISPs do it, the consumer gets hosed anyway. For me, NN means the consumer gets the bandwidth *they paid for,* whether they want to use it for bittorrent, or Netflix streaming.
Opinion 2 is a misled corollary of 1. What the NN advocates want to prevent is the subscriber being shaken down by the ISP for accessing a site/protocol that competes with the ISP’s own services. Look at the potential Comcast/MSNBC merger. Imagine being told by Comcast you have to pay extra money to access FNC’s or CNN’s websites but not MSNBC’s. NN is you the subscriber paying the ISP ONCE for the full gamut of services that is currently understood to be “Internet access.”
NN, at least in its non-activist, non-bureaucratic form, aims to keep the ISP from shaking you down. That’s all.
BenJPickett says
The problem here is that it’s being written with the ISPs mind. In fact, the current document gives Comcast, Time Warner and the rest the ability to charge you to access additional services that they don’t have partnership or ownership over simply because it doesn’t restrict them from doing so. By having our choices over our ISP restricted even further than they already are we then give the ISPs more to shake us down over. They already think that it’s brilliant to charge us overages and that we actually want to be charged overages, they just have to figure out a good plan to implement it effectively. They must be miss reading all the news coverage from cell phone overages about outraged consumers.
These ISPs pay lots of money to lawyers already and now they can simply give them more to do by finding loop holes in this document. With that said, any NN act that comes to the plate that is not guided by the consumers themselves is not good for consumers.
BenJPickett says
While I do have a lot of personal opinion against NN, I try to reserve that for more private discussions. In short, I think we have to change in this arena because if we fight it, we’ll get screwed and the best choice that we have is to pilot that change and bring it in a direction that will preserve the function of internet as it is today. In order to win the war, we will lose some battles and it’s up to us to decide which ones we must sit out of and what ones we have to go all in for. If I lose the ability to access all services that I currently access for the $65 (just for internet) I pay a month, I’ll cancel my account, ditch the TV and all. I use the internet for almost everything it can be used for from paying bills to playing games, and if I can do that from Starbucks for free with just cutting the fat from it I’d save a lot of time and probably get a lot more done on my hunny do list. If my bill goes up and I don’t have to pay extra to use currently free services I think I’ll be ok as long as they don’t decide to charge me per MB, crazy overage prices or bundle my internet like they do premium channels, I think I’ll be ok.
I think we, as Christians, need to step back and take a look at these proposed changes from a missional standpoint. If they do pass, is there any way that they could prohibit our freedom of speech and religion? Is there any way that these changes could restrict our ability to use the internet as a delivery platform to offer help and support to those needing to hear the message of God or would they restrict us from continuing to be involved in the largest community of all? There are people all over the world that can’t worship freely but they still do, how does Jesus want us to deal with these changes?
Stuart says
As a UK based reader the NN debate is intriguing.
I don’t know the full detail of it but I can see the value from both sides of the story. This comment thread is yet another discussion point. But nonetheless it remains an interesting and necessary discussion so thanks for bringing it up Jay.
Of course being in the UK it is well known that where the US leads we will almost certainly follow so the outcome of this is something I will take note of and especially (should it pass) the how it is implemented part.