U.S. as Traffic Cop in Web Fight
FCC Proposal on Bandwidth a Boon for Consumers and Silicon Valley, Blow to Telecoms


By AMY SCHATZ

The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.
More

The move would make good on a campaign promise to Silicon Valley supporters like Google Inc. from President Barack Obama, but will trigger a battle with phone and cable companies like AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.

The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn't block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.

The rules will escalate a fight over how much control the government should have over Internet commerce. The Obama administration is taking the side of Google, Amazon.com Inc. and an array of smaller businesses that want to profit from offering consumers streaming video, graphics-rich games, movie and music downloads and other services.

Julius Genachowski, head of the Federal Communications Commission, is also expected to propose in a speech Monday, for the first time, that rules against blocking or slowing Web traffic would apply to wireless-phone companies, according to people familiar with the plan.

Wireless carriers, which have been among the fiercest opponents of such regulation, continue to restrict what kind of data travels over the airwaves they control. For example, earlier this year, AT&T restricted an Internet-phone service from Skype so iPhone users couldn't place calls on AT&T's cellular network. At the time, AT&T cited network congestion concerns.

"We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks –– such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content –– to the benefit of their consumers," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group.

If the FCC does force U.S. wireless carriers to open their networks to data-heavy applications like streaming video, it could push them beyond the limited capacity they have. Already, in areas like New York and San Francisco, a high concentration of iPhones has caused many AT&T customers to complain about degrading service.

In such a scenario, wireless carriers may have to rethink how much they charge for data plans or even cap how much bandwidth individuals get, said Julie Ask, a wireless analyst at Jupiter Research.

The FCC's proposal will take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to people familiar with the plan, and would ask how such rules should apply to current networks.

The rules could encourage big Internet companies to launch new data-intensive services by establishing that their traffic can't be slowed or blocked. In the business market, companies that make Internet-phone services or video-conferencing software may invest more heavily in those services, some analysts say.

The rules are likely to be a big boon to smaller tech companies, like Silicon Valley start-ups and small makers of mobile software for Apple Inc.'s iPhone and other devices, that wouldn't be able to afford paying Internet providers for special access.

"Any company or piece of software that becomes popular, generating a lot of traffic, would tend to benefit," said Jonathan Zittrain, the co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

The FCC has four "net neutrality" principles, which call on Internet providers to avoid restricting or delaying access to legal Internet sites and services. Carriers are permitted to block access to illegal services and sites.

Mr. Genachowski is expected to propose the agency clarify its current principles and turn them into formal rules. He will also tack on a new one, which would require carriers practice "reasonable" network management. The agency will ask for guidance on how to define "reasonable."

Most Internet providers have resisted "net neutrality" rules in the past, saying they have a right to control traffic on networks they own and it's not a good idea for the government to micro-manage Internet traffic.

Phone companies including AT&T have argued that they can live with the FCC's existing principles, but they've argued there's no reason to put more formal rules put into place.

Representatives from AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Comcast and Sprint Nextel Corp. declined to comment ahead of the FCC's anticipated announcement.

The proposals come as the FCC faces a federal appeals court case over its authority to regulate Web traffic. Comcast is fighting an FCC decision last year to ding it for violating the agency's "net neutrality" principles when it slowed traffic for some subscribers who were downloading big files. Comcast said it didn't violate any rules because the FCC had never formally adopted any, but it did change how it manages its network.

Republicans are likely to oppose the FCC's new proposal –– both at the FCC and in Congress –– arguing that the FCC is trying to fix problems that don't exist and that the agency should take a more hands-off approach to the fast-changing industry.

"With only a few isolated instances of complaints alleging net neutrality-like abuses ever having been filed, it is a mistake," said Randolph May, president of Free State Foundation, a free-market oriented think tank.

The concept of network neutrality originated with the nation's longtime telephone monopoly. AT&T and its successors were prohibited from giving any phone call preference in how quickly it was connected. Since the Internet was born on phone wires, the concept survived into the Internet age largely by default.

That notion was challenged toward the end of the 1990s, as cable companies began offering Internet service. Cable companies argued since they were content companies not phone companies, the principle of network neutrality didn't apply to them.

Phone companies responded by getting into the content business as well, with television service. As a result, both the cable companies and phone companies had incentives to create conditions on the Internet –– either through pricing or slowing or speeding up certain sites –– to favor their own content.

In 2005, the FCC deregulated the Internet business, by ruling that Internet providers were communications companies and not phone companies and, importantly, were therefore no longer subject to the old phone rules such as network neutrality.

The FCC instead created its four "guiding principles" for protecting network neutrality. They were vague enough to embolden those looking for ways around it. Major phone companies like AT&T subsequently said they were considering creating "fast lanes" on the Internet, available at a higher price –– plans they put on hold amid an outcry.

Now, by codifying the principle, the FCC is seeking to limit erosion of network neutrality.

Mr. Genachowski is expected to set plans to open a formal rule-making process on the issue at the FCC's October meeting. The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the FCC's five-person board; whose three Democrats support net neutrality.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=929415


-Foxxz

I think it's wasteful, the only ISP abuse that has ever been a problem was AOL and it wasn't bandwidth related.

there's nothing economically viable in screwing with traffic. All this would do is screw with a premium service that would favor their own traffic (like fancast + comcast)

Expect data plans on wireless companies to go up

I'm not so sure I agree. If they can't slow access to sites that are a drain on their networks that could = increased prices for their subscribers as they pass along the cost of beefing up the network. Or, all subscribers could take a hit on performance. I don't want to pay more per month or have my work emails take x2 as long to send just so some 14 year old can watch youtube on her cellphone.

Go read up on Comcast and the several times they have been slapped around for the shit they pull on their networks. That is part of what they are trying to stop.

Exactly, and the .gov has no business interfering.

If the market doesn't like a company pulling that BS it will rectify the situation.

Well, you have to wonder why just about everyone else has G4 already while we're barely up to G3.  About the only nations that have slower bandwidth than the USA are in Africa and some parts of Asia.  Putting some of that text-messaging scam profit into expanding bandwidth would make sense.

I heard that some internet company in South Aftrica demonstrated it was faster to send data by carrier pigeon than use Telkom lines.  Neat idea, strapping a 32GB data card to a pigeon leg.

If barriers to entry weren't so high, I'd say create a competing internet and eat their lunch.

Now we just need someone to invent the tanglenet.

We have crazy fast bandwidth here. You can purchase bandwidth for $1.5 - $4/mbit in low quantities. You just can't get it at your house, but for servers it's inexpensive.

Would this prevent the bullshit throttling that cox and comcast was doing?

I doubt it, you can't use your bandwidth 24/7, 1mbit is 330GB/mo, so if you upload 2mbit 24/7 like it's possible with torrenting that's 660GB/mo, way too much for a home connection to push. This would be more of the .gov preventing isps from restricting certain web sites, hopefully they don't force peering agreements and such.

This makes me happy, I had an ISP that would SHIT ALL OVER YOUR SPEED if you even came close to using the connection that you paid for to it's potential. I had Buckeye cable in Toledo a few years ago and I had an advertised 8meg down. However, if you used your connection heavily they would cut back your speed to near dial up. After some digging I found that they didn't have the infrastructure to support the advertised speeds. If a lot of people used their connection in your neighborhood you were screwed.

If you pay for bandwidth then you should get it.  The problem is these companies are illegally advertising services they can't provide to everyone at once.  Slowing down certain traffic just so you can keep customers is a bullshit practice and they should get reamed for it.  




 

The .gov's only role should be enforcement of contract.  If you pay for specific internet speeds you should get them by law.  Market principle would apply when companies are forced to only advertise bandwidth they can actually produce, and then competition would kick in.



 

I agree with you in principle on the contract issue. My contract's wording is basically "speeds from baseline speed  up to speed x" though, not "you are guaranteed to always have at least speed x".

this will be the first step to controling the media of the NET..

the MSM IS PISSED as is the Congress that WE THE PEOPLE know
TOO DAMN MUCH and they cant randomly pass as many STUPID THEIVING LAWS as they want to.
we are informed
we are aware,
we have awoken from a 60 year nap and watching every move they make..
the NET put obama in office and took out VAN JONES, and working on others, and too much info from the past shows up on UTUBE..

our FIRST Amendment is being attacked, DO NOT TAKE THIS ACTION LIGHTLY..

Which is a deceptive business practice.  Best effort is one thing, but when they are purposely throttling only select services (solely at the discretion of the ISP and without your knowledge or consent) then trying to hide that fact then they should be punished.



 

This is not the fairness doctrine

Net neutrality is great,

Bingo

If the contract plainly states what I posted, how is it deceptive business practice?

You will regret inviting the man into your life.  You should know this by now.

</isp running guy>

Sorry, just reread my post,,Just not seeing a damn thing about Radio,I am well aware it isnt the fairness doctrine,,the NET has given people an avenue to the news as never before, uncencored, uncontroled PEOPLE are far more informed then EVER in the history of Man..with any GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF ANYTHING IN OUR LIVES we are gonna go down the shitter,,this is a toe in the water, the camels nose in the tent to shut down and control what you see, hear, and read...

Net neutrality = good.





Telecoms selling services they can't deliver = bad.





The methods .gov is using to achieve net neutrality = bad.





They should use regulations requiring disclosure of their speed limiting practices and Fraud law that are already in place to prosecute those selling speeds they can't deliver.
That said I do not have much of a problem with what the fcc is doing.

 

This is a PROPER use of .gov regulation.

Man, I've been waiting for this since CLINTON was president.

... It's actually preventing others control of what you see, hear, and read...



It's preventing censorship.  



While I agree the .gov should be using different methods to achieve net neutrality.  Net neutrality is good and you should support it.  If you don't you either want to commit fraud by selling people more connection than you can deliver or don't have any idea what you're talking about.
 

I always expect that.


the question is, would this mean an end to bandwidth caps placed on data plans?

so what happens when prices go up?

or will government be able to regulate the prices also?


hey i know, Obama can just shut down the internet if the prices get too high. hooray for everyone!

My guess is no, and the price on each tier plan will substantially increase.

Expect metered usage. Traffic and bandwidth on the net is growing exponentially. Someone will need to be charged for the growth because the pipes can't get bigger without investment. The carriers aren't going to do without profit and since they can't charge the content providers... someone is going to come up with the bucks. Whooops! Looks like the consumer!

My problem is that telcos are selling connections based on advertising that says 8mb down (or whatever) and then cutting your connection back if you use it too much.

Try to sustain that 8mb down, and see what happens.  They will terminate your connection.  I know ATT does it on their DSL.   I'd loose my connection like crazy while I was playing call of duty on my xbox (and I am sure that doesn't use my entire bandwidth).  

If they would advertise what they could sustain instead of UBER PEAK middle of the night, when I'm the only one using my connection speed, that would be ok as well.  Let the customer make an informed decision rather than selling a potential instead of a fact.

LOL. American internet is slow; we're 20th-30th on lists and consider 10 Mbps fast while Korea and Japan have 1 Gb home fiber connections. You can't even get fiber here w/o special contracts. Then when people actually use the advertised speed, companies shape traffic instead of building the infrastructure they neglected.
Providers are here to sell infrastructure, but American companies want to sell content instead. That shits on the market and consumer, but survives in the market because the US is simply behind the times. Americans as a whole are not early adopters.

I'm sure a lot of that is a factor of an equation including size, population density and GDP.

You live in a state that is just short of twice as big as japan.  Japan has almost ELEVEN times as many people per square mile as your state.  You think maybe its not just those evil coporations out to be mean to you but that economically it costs a ton more money to wire up our country than tiny dense japan?  Do I wish I could get ftth in the country?  Sure, that'd be great but I also am realistic and recognize that its probably going to the countries with people packed in like sardines first because the cost can be recovered far more easily.

The whole reason we're having this talk is because people want more for less money from their broadband.  They don't understand that their home account isn't a SLA guaranteeing them dedicated access to X Mb/s. They think this is going to get them some more bandwidth for free.  The big surprise they're going to get is the return of metered service.  

or we aren't surprised at all and think that's the way it should be.  Those who use a lot should naturally pay for what they use.  Those who use little should naturally only pay for what they use.  Paying for internet should be like paying for power... only what you use.



Telecom companies should not be throttling peoples connections when they are using the bandwidth they have been allotted in their plan to it's fullest.  To do so is FRAUD and should be illegal.  



Since they will no longer be permitted to perpetrate the fraud that they have been I expect a return to honest advertising and plans.





 

Well, count me in the minority, because I am completely 100% against this.



Carriers have the right to manage their own networks as they see fit. When did it suddenly become okay around here to cheer government action that tells a private company how their data network shall be managed? Piss on this.



How absolutely arrogant do you have to be to presume that you know better than carrier network engineers? You couldn't describe their network design in even the most rudimentary way, but you somehow feel you have the right to dictate how traffic is managed on it? Cut the crap.



What a crock of shit.

Truth.

You'll get no disagreement from me. But the solution is to tell them to stop deceptive advertising, and failing to deliver on contracted services. What you DON'T do, is dictate the terms of the contracts they're allowed to offer, which is what they ended up doing.





It is now illegal to offer a contract that says "We'll provide you unmetered internet access at a low price, if you agree to allow us to throttle some of your traffic". It'll ILLEGAL for you to enter into this kind of contract, even if you're 100% okay with it.





Fuck. This. Shit.





 

This.

Might I suggest you find a company that caters to your desires rather than drag the rest of us there by government force?  Some of us are quite alright with sharing some communal bandwidth.  The reason metered went away was because people didn't like being hit with big bills some months when their usage got away from them.  People liked knowing what their bill would be every month and not having their service suddenly suspended.

To expect 8Mb/s 24/7 on a residential account for $40.00 is just not being an informed consumer.  The ISP could probably do a better job at making it clear that their unlimited plan is unlimited with a few stipulations just like an all you can eat buffer is all you can eat with some limitiations.  Fraud is a strong word.  Do you have a service level agreement showing your guarantee of service that you're not receiving? Of course you don't.  Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive, you want a level of service that you're not paying for and call fraud if you don't get it because you don't understand what you're buying with your home service.

I'm willing to say shame on both parties for the ISP not doing more to educate their customers on what they're buying and to the customers for not bothering to learn about what they're buying.  Getting the government involved will help no one but the government.