Net Neutrality loss

[Rhazes]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558/

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.


Whats you opinion on this guys?

Anyone who has had throttled content in the past knows this is not good news. Blizzard had to threaten Comcast it would buy the company if they continued to throttle their p2p customers. I was playing MMOs at the time this happened and guildmates was dropping like flies from the servers over and over because of it.

This just dosent affect video games, websites like hulu and netflix will be affected and will have to charge more. Some sites will be blocked completely. Comcast is already doing this to some sites.

[Phier]

From what I gather political groups were trying to use net neutrality as an equal time like ploy on search engines, and if thats true I don't regret its loss.

[MathiasOfAthens]

What you mean by equal time like ploy on Search Engines?

[Phier]

What you mean by equal time like ploy on Search Engines?

The idea was if you search for a topic, that both sides of said topic are suppose to show up on the search, instead of based on popularity etc.

I don't have a source for this as its been quite a while. It was one of those buried things and maybe its wrong info.

[Rhazes]

Net Neutrality deals with ISPs blocking, slowing, or otherwise negatively interfering with specific websites or servers, because they would not have paid for that ISPs customers to receive, say, TWcenter at the full speed.

It prevents providers from making twcenter.com load in no less than 300 seconds because Twcenter didn't pay them for it.

When, Comcast was throttling Blizzard last year its basically ruined WoW, and some of the MP games.

It could eventually affect TW MP battles.

The government was protecting us against this. The goldenage of the Internet is over.

In other words Net Neutrality says that the ISPs cannot charge to provide a higher speed, then deny users access to a page, or intentionally slow their access, because the owner of the site hasn't paid them.

[PoleCat]

The idea was if you search for a topic, that both sides of said topic are suppose to show up on the search, instead of based on popularity etc.

I don't have a source for this as its been quite a while. It was one of those buried things and maybe its wrong info.

What you're thinking of is the Democrat's attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. This last attempt was luckily DOA. A lot of conservative bloggers got these two mixed-up as well so that may be where you saw it....

Net Neutrality is a different regulatory principle - namely that ISPs cannot slow or otherwise interfere with content provided from competing companies.

Let's use Comcast as an example. Soon they will own NBC. With Net neutrality Comcast will be required to give their customers equal access to content provided by other sources. Without Net Neutrality Comcast would be within their legal rights to slow or block access to content from competitors.

In the later example you as a Comcast customer would have access to all of NBC and related content from internet partners but they could slow or block completely content from Fox, ABC, CBS and their partners.

It's unlikely that the last extreme example would ever come to pass because there would be an uproar from their customers but conceivably Comcast could charge extra for access to that competing content.

In short, Net Neutrality is a good thing.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well that would be unnecessary.

[Phier]

Well that would be unnecessary.

Its the government.

[Viking Prince]

The challange was to prevent the FTC from regulating broadband traffic without clear authority to do so. I believe it was thought that if this 'net neiutrality' provision stood, that would give the FTC authority to regulate cable television as well as the the internet.

So another already noted -- it was a camel nose into the introduction of the 'fairness doctrine' in a disguised form.

Not much is being reported yet -- it will take a bit before the major news outlets have an analysis of the court ruling.

The court case centered on Comcast’s challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning the company from blocking its broadband subscribers from using an online file-sharing technology known as BitTorrent.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...eutrality.html

[Phier]

The challange was to prevent the FTC from regulating broadband traffic without clear authority to do so. I believe it was thought that if this 'net neiutrality' provision stood, that would give the FTC authority to regulate cable television as well as the the internet.

So another already noted -- it was a camel nose into the introduction of the 'fairness doctrine' in a disguised form.

Thanks VP, when I saw you posted I knew I could count on you

[PoleCat]

So another already noted -- it was a camel nose into the introduction of the 'fairness doctrine' in a disguised form.

Well, no not really. The Fairness Doctrine was about requiring stations to provide equal time to political programming from both sides. For instance, if a radio station was known for it's 4 hours of conservative talk shows then that same station would have to provide an equal 4 hours of liberal talk. That's not a good thing.

Net Neutrality is really only about how ISP's self-regulate traffic on their servers. The content of the traffic is only relevant when talking about large companies trying to shut-out competing content on their servers.

And the BitTorrent example was a great example BTW - Comcast was identifying traffic from that site and routing those packets through secondary server systems which served to slow or drop the connection. Essentially Comcast customers were paying for a service that was being deliberately impeded by their ISP. The reasoning behind this was that BitTorrent users were using too much bandwith so their downloads were regulated or dropped altogether. Not something I would want as a customer....

EDIT: VP - I think you meant the FCC not the FTC....

[Snowball]

Let the market handle it, if an ISP acts like a then customer can (and should) switch to another ISP that does not act like a .

The market will fill the demand for good service, if it is allowed too.

[Rhazes]

Let the market handle it, if an ISP acts like a then customer can (and should) switch to another ISP that does not act like a .

The market will fill the demand for good service, if it is allowed too.

Most of the providers have a monopoly in the areas they service. Comcast and Time Warner bought all the smaller providers out.

[Snoopy]

How about instead of passing laws and such, the government cuts the regulations of ISPs entirely and lets new competitors hop in with small cable networks? No ISP would be able to mess around with the users if there was competition that would offer faster speeds and no preferential service.

[PoleCat]

How about instead of passing laws and such, the government cuts the regulations of ISPs entirely and lets new competitors hop in with small cable networks? No ISP would be able to mess around with the users if there was competition that would offer faster speeds and no preferential service.

There are no regulations preventing small cable companies form entering business as it stands today. In fact these companies rely on FCC regulations in order to stay in business.

Here's how it works - the big companies laid down all of that fiber optical cable on their own dime. They originally sought to bar smaller companies from using their trunks to maintain their complete control over the system. Smaller companies fought for the right to use the infrastructure of the large companies themselves to provide their own service (while paying for the privilege of course). That's how it works today.

What keeps smaller companies out of the market is profits. The larger companies bundle a number of services together and offer these packages at lower cost than small businesses can match. Essentially the large-share companies have won the price war - no small ISP can really match up while still paying the larger companies for bandwidth. There are small independent ISP's that guarantee net neutrality but there is a hefty price for the service.

In this market size matters....

[MathiasOfAthens]

There are no regulations preventing small cable companies form entering business as it stands today. In fact these companies rely on FCC regulations in order to stay in business.

Here's how it works - the big companies laid down all of that fiber optical cable on their own dime. They originally sought to bar smaller companies from using their trunks to maintain their complete control over the system. Smaller companies fought for the right to use the infrastructure of the large companies themselves to provide their own service (while paying for the privilege of course). That's how it works today.

What keeps smaller companies out of the market is profits. The larger companies bundle a number of services together and offer these packages at lower cost than small businesses can match. Essentially the large-share companies have won the price war - no small ISP can really match up while still paying the larger companies for bandwidth. There are small independent ISP's that guarantee net neutrality but there is a hefty price for the service.

In this market size matters....

Wow you sorta destroyed Snoopy argument that the "Market is great and will fix every little problem if we just leave it alone."

Heres what I found on this a little different than claiming the FCC is trying to force equal air time down comcasts throat. http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update6-.html

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- Federal regulators lacked authority to censure Comcast Corp. for interfering with subscribers’ Internet traffic, a U.S. court said in a decision that could limit the government’s power to police companies’ Web behavior.
The ruling is a setback for Internet companies led by Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. that want so-called net neutrality rules to keep Internet providers such as Comcast, Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. from limiting Web traffic.

There those small businesses trying to break into the big bad market dominated by the big 3.

“The D.C. Circuit’s dropped a bomb on us,” Ben Scott, policy director of the advocacy group Free Press that challenged Comcast and sided with the FCC, said in an interview. “Comcast is now permitted to block Web sites with impunity.”
The FCC in 2008 censured Comcast for blocking subscribers using peer-to-peer software often used to view videos, a decision hailed by consumer groups as a step toward keeping Web traffic free of obstruction from corporations. Comcast said it delayed some file transfers to alleviate network congestion.
Today’s decision “invalidated the prior commission’s approach” and didn’t “close the door to other methods” for “preserving a free and open Internet,” FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard said in an e-mailed statement.

Technically I think the court will now allow Comcast and other ISPs to block websites but I dont think they will.

The decision “creates a dangerous situation, one where the health and the openness of the Internet is being held hostage” to the behavior of telephone and cable companies that own the wires used for Internet traffic to homes and businesses, said the Open Internet Coalition in an e-mailed statement.

The FCC is taking comments until April 8 on net neutrality rules that would forbid companies from favoring content they own, and from blocking or slowing rivals’ services.

[Snoopy]

There are no regulations preventing small cable companies form entering business as it stands today. In fact these companies rely on FCC regulations in order to stay in business.

Here's how it works - the big companies laid down all of that fiber optical cable on their own dime. They originally sought to bar smaller companies from using their trunks to maintain their complete control over the system. Smaller companies fought for the right to use the infrastructure of the large companies themselves to provide their own service (while paying for the privilege of course). That's how it works today.

What keeps smaller companies out of the market is profits. The larger companies bundle a number of services together and offer these packages at lower cost than small businesses can match. Essentially the large-share companies have won the price war - no small ISP can really match up while still paying the larger companies for bandwidth. There are small independent ISP's that guarantee net neutrality but there is a hefty price for the service.

In this market size matters....

No regulations? Yes there are; ISP licensing, controlled by the FCC, is a rather large one.

[jirisys]

As long as there is need, there will be sorrow.

If we are dependent on an ISP, not being able to be one ourselves, then we cannot truly have net neutrality, the ISP can do whatever it wants with your signal (in the context of legality that is).

~Jirisys ()

[PoleCat]

No regulations? Yes there are; ISP licensing, controlled by the FCC, is a rather large one.

But how in any way does that prevent smaller ISPs from entering the marketplace? They have to pay for the license - I'll give you that. But if these smaller companies pay all fees and keep up on compliance they have every chance of entering the marketplace and competing with the larger companies.

I laid out the problem before - the smaller companies have to pay for the privilege of using the larger companies trunks because they lack the capital to lay their own infrastructure. That is how it should be - whoever lays the pipe should benefit from the capital outlay. The only way that the smaller companies stay above water is by providing a superior product at an obviously inflated price. It's not regulation keeping these companies down - it's just plain market forces. I know it's not as sexy as blaming the Government but it is truth.

[Frederf]

Aye, the trust in that "well the market will fix itself" is rather naively-put. Well-behaved markets where competitors are nearly equal tend to have self-correcting effects but it is just as much a fact of life that markets can be unstable, collapsing to monopolies. Is some start-up really going to raise $50 billion dollars (or more?) to develop a completely independent network infrastructure to compete with the giants? That's basically what it would take without regulation to the effect that "hey, information access is a utility like water or electricity." 'Net access as utility, even fundamental right, has taken hold in countries in Scandinavia.