FCC Tackles Net Neutrality
WASHINGTON - The FCC came to the Boston area, the birthplace of the Internet and the cradle of the American Revolution, on Monday to begin a serious examination of network neutrality, one of the most vexing free speech questions facing policymakers.
The dispute pits open-Internet advocates against service providers such as Comcast Corp., which say they need to take reasonable steps to manage traffic on their networks.
During a field hearing at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, urged the FCC to take a more activist stance on network neutrality.
“The Internet is as much mine and yours as much as it is Verizon’s and AT&T’s or Comcast’s,” said Markey, one of Congress’ foremost experts on telecommunications. “The key question for safeguarding the Internet is recognition that the nature of the Net is not the services provided by the carriers themselves. They don’t provide Internet services, they provide Internet access. There’s a difference.”
Markey has an ally in Vuze, a Silicon Valley-based company that provides high-definition content over the Internet using BitTorrent file-sharing technology. At the hearing, it asked the FCC to clarify how much power Internet service providers have in controlling traffic.
Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa said that network companies, particularly Comcast, are trying to cut the company’s legs out from under it. “What we have is a horse race, and in this case they own the only horse track in town,” he said. “They also own a horse, and all they want to do is slow our horse down by two seconds.”
Marvin Ammori, general counsel of public interest group Free Press, backed up BianRosa, telling the FCC that Comcast’s decision to slow BitTorrent users is discrimination.
“Blocking or delaying BitTorrent is a clear violation of the right to access the content and applications of their choice,” he said.
In November, Free Press filed a petition for declaratory ruling and a complaint against Comcast. It argues that the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement forbids Comcast’s actions.
The companies that built the networks say that any aggressive government role in ensuring network neutrality would be a mistake. They say they need the ability to manage their networks with little interference in order to provide a broad range of services.
“If our customers want it, Comcast will deliver it,” Comcast executive vp David Cohen testified. “We do manage our networks, but don’t let the rhetoric of our critics scare you. Every network is managed.”
Cohen told the FCC that they do slow down some applications in order to keep the network flowing but that it is a “minimal, virtually imperceptible effect on a minimum of users.”
Cohen said that the free speech argument cuts both ways. If the government starts meddling in network management, he argued, it begins a slide down a slippery regulatory slope.
“And once the government starts regulating the Internet, there is nothing to limit its regulatory reach only to broadband service providers,” he testified.
Verizon executive vp Tom Tauke backed up Cohen, saying his company does not block content for content’s sake. “Network management is important to the secure and reliable functioning of our networks” and “just as important, if not more so, to consumers,” he said.
It is difficult to divine where the FCC will come down on network neutrality. While Democrats have made the issue a touchstone, the commission is dominated by Republicans. That could change if the White House switches parties after the November elections. By law, the commission is split 3-2, with the party holding the presidency having a majority.
FCC chairman Kevin Martin, no friend of the cable industry, has been resistant to moving beyond the commission’s 2005 statement of Internet principles. Yet he expressed concern Monday about the network operators’ actions.
“I believe it’s critical that the commission remain vigilant to protect consumers’ access to content on the Internet,” he said. “I think it’s important to understand that the commission is ready, willing and able to step in, if necessary, to correct any practices that are ongoing today.”
Senior Democratic commissioner Michael Copps wants the agency to take an aggressive stance. “There’s an old Washington axiom: Decisions made without you are usually decisions against you,” he said. “That kind of business-as-usual decisionmaking doesn’t cut it for something this important.”
Markey, on the day after the Oscars, didn’t sound as if he’s backing off anytime soon. “We want to be able to look back years from now, to be able to celebrate that this is no country for old bandwidth,” he said.
© 2008 The Hollywood Reporter
David Cohen, exec of Comcast: “If our CUSTOMERS want it …” [emphasis added]
Tom Tuake, exec vp of Verizon: “Network management is … just as important, if not more so, to CONSUMERS.” [emphasis added]
Kevin Martin, FCC chair: “… the commission [should] remain vigilant to protect CONSUMERS’ access.” [emphasis added]
Just a further addition to the already overwhelming evidence that corporations and politicans are one in the same. All of them think of all of us as nothing more than good little capitalist consumers.
Is anyone else out there angry at such a condescending label? There is far more to me and my life than being a good capitalist.
How about you?
these corps will stop at nothing to have things their way. they don’t believe the internet is as much mine and yours as theirs. The thought process is, well if we pay for the servers that process all this information it should be our right to control and filter whatever the f$%@ we want to. for most people this is going to mean less “third party” sites that are available or easy to find and more “corpo” sites getting all that traffic. they are working dilegently to make sure regular folks won’t have access to any info or news that questions the ‘MAINSTREAM’ view of reality. these corps cant be trusted, they made that clear by spying on the whole american public after sham 9`11. you notice that ‘click, click, click’ noise on your fone? thought so…
David Cohen, exec of Comcast: “If our CUSTOMERS want it …”
The vast majority of cable customers want a channel lineup tailored to their individual preferences. Meaning, they don’t want to pay for 800 channels, when they really only watch 30-40.
But of course, you don’t see any of the cable execs lining up to satisfy what their customers want in this case.
Please keep in mind that there is a difference between “paying for capacity” and “paying for priority.”
If your neighbour downloads movies 24/7/365, they should be paying more for the privilege. If your Great Aunt Tillie uses a dial-up line in rural Iowa to read email once a week, she should pay less.
But the issue of net neutrality is not about BitTorrent users — that’s what the big players want you to believe. These “customers” Comcast says want special treatment are not BitTorrent downloaders — they’re Disney, and other content providers who want to turn the Internet into a broadcast medium.
ISPs already have the ability to charge users extra for high levels of use. This is more important than that. I run a small ISP, providing websites and mail services for artists and non-profits. If the Internet goes two-tier, I will not be able to afford the upper tier, and I’ll be forced out of business because my customers will not be willing to have their pages slowly drip onto screens like molasses. Or many of those customers will just shut down their web presence out of frustration.
It’s all about silencing the little guy.
Yep. If the big providers have their way, we’ll get internet service just like cable service… with one provider supplying X,Y,Z sites, while the other provider supplies A,B,C sites… Content providers will have to sign deals with the access providers in order to get their sites through their firewall. It’s sick. Capitalism turns everything it touches to shit. But can’t have anything “free” in this world. If some bloody bastard can exploit it, he will. It’s really all about greed. Trampling on free-speech and net-neutrality in the name of making a few extra bucks. Bastards.
For all the fancy rhetoric Comcast and the other companies throw around, the problem is really very basic:
They Sold more than they can Deliver.
So, they’re trying to lie their way out of it.
They Sold “unlimited speed”. But, they neglected to build the Infrastructure to Deliver “unlimited speed”.
Now, they’re trying to weasel out of honoring their contracts.
Bait & Switch advertising is still Illegal almost everywhere. The Cable & Phone companies are just hoping no on will notice if they keep the conversation confusing.
tonkatsu February 26th, 2008 3:25 pm
Great post.
tonkatsu and mastershake: I’m not sure I follow. If the problem is simply because the corps sold more speed than the infrastructure can handle (I’m not a techie person, so please forgive me), then wouldn’t we be hearing that Europe, Canada, etc. was having the same issues about ‘managing’ their networks?
I can’t imagine that European corporations operate with so much more integrity that they sold only up to their capacity.
I could be wrong, but I’m thinking that this is more related to content control / access.
“I could be wrong, but I’m thinking that this is more related to content control / access.”
I think this might be the end result, though I think the front-end reason is good ol’ greed.
The Internet is the final frontier for democratic communications. If the Internet is controlled, we’ve lost the last form of open mass communication short of smoke signals.
Now, where’s my blanket…
I am on their mailing list - I hope this info is helpful:
From SavetheInternet.com
Here’s the good news: Comcast was squirming in their seats at yesterday’s Cambridge FCC hearing on Internet freedom.
All five FCC commissioners were on hand to listen to testimony from elected officials, legal scholars and lobbyists. There was nearly unanimous agreement that Comcast’s blocking of Web traffic posed a real threat to the future of the Internet.
The bad news is that not everyone was able to be heard at this important public hearing. More than 100 people who showed up were turned away. Now we know why: Comcast has admitted paying seat-fillers to pack the room — preventing concerned citizens from participating (follow links below for more info).
Don’t let them get away with it. You can still make your voice heard. The FCC is still accepting public comments on Comcast’s blocking of Internet traffic until Thursday, Feb. 28.
Take Action Now: Stop Comcast’s Blocking
While people gathered outside trying to get into the room, many of Comcast’s paid seat-warmers fell asleep in the front row. One of them admitted to us that he was “just getting paid to hold someone’s seat.”
Why is Comcast afraid of real public input? Simply because they know that blocking the free-flowing Internet is wrong. Don’t let Comcast block you. Please submit your comments directly to the FCC before the Feb. 28 deadline:
Make Your Voice Heard: Take Action Now
Thanks for fighting for Internet Freedom.
Josh Stearns
Campaign Coordinator
Free Press
www.freepress.net
www.savetheinternet.com
P.S. You can read more about Comcast’s tactics here:
1. Grassroots Support? Or Astroturf at Portfolio.com
2. Comcast Blocking: First the Internet — Now the Public at SavetheInternet.com
P.P.S. Forward this e-mail to all your friends.
View more information about this event at: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=boston
For a great documentary on this subject, see the Bill Moyers (who else) documentary on PBS: The Net at Risk
It’s a bit dated, but still highly relavant.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html
NET NEUTRALITY, IT’S NOT JUST FREE SPEECH, IT’S THE ONLY SPEECH
Here’s the same statement, revised for compliance with net neutrality:
There’s capacity tiers, volume tiers and “Whitacre tiers”, coined from Ed Whitacre, ex-CEO of AT&T.
“Whitacre tiering” is a severe violation of net neutrality advanced in open, public threats by Whitacre at large content providers like Google and Disney.
The idea is for third party facility-based ISPs like AT&T to intervene between content providers like Google and Disney and their “customers” and “charge Google and Disney for using their pipes” to conduct their business.
The problem is the “pipes” are already paid for though massive connection and volumetric charges paid by both, content providers and their users.
So “Whitacre tiering” is little more than an extortion scheme, like a protection racket forced on unwilling content providers as large fees designed to slice out a chunk of revenue and profit over and above that already used to pay for the “pipes”.
And there’s no reason to restrict it to large content providers. As soon as any content provider becomes financially successful, i.e. internet commerce in general, it’ll be a prime target for “Whitacre” fees.
Not that Google and Disney and others are not doing some very nasty things in the area of content owner concentration and privacy invasion - they are.
But when something like “Whitacre tiering” is even contemplated publicly, it smacks of arrogant contempt for the last frontier of free speech.
Government regulation indeed. We’re talking about the First Amendment, the first great opportunity for a thousand … a trillion flowers to bloom from every conceivable electronic soapbox from the ground up.
And what happens when it succeeds wildly due precisely to effective net neutrality as a fragile carry-over of common carriage regulation?
CEOs who make more in an hour than most make in month chide FCC Commissioners for even daring to question the fragile conditions on which net neutrality depends for survival.
After all, like the arguments made against campaign finance reform, people spend more on bubble gum and potato chips than is spent influencing legislators.
That says it all. The free market has reduced the value of free speech to that of processed food and snacks. Who needs net neutrality when legislators can be bought and sold like potato chips?
This issue is really about communication providers trying to squeeze extra revenue from a much outdated communications product. Communication companies contractually price internet connections by the amount of bandwidth that the customer purchases and not the type of information that flows through the connection. Instead of investing money in the next generation of communication infrastructure, internet providers are manipulating the speed of different services at both the customer and service level giving customers a different level of service than what they paid for.
This “management” practice would be similar to your water company providing treated potable water to large industrial users while providing untreated water to the household user.
The FCC needs to transition the entire RF Spectrum into unrestricted WiFi internet access.
The current method (which is really just a holdover of the past before there was an internet) of dividing up the spectrum between competing bidders for a variety of specific services rather than creating a cohesive collective Ultra Wide Band network is stunting the massive communications potential of the RF Spectrum.
We need to demand that the FCC in concert with the IEEE (creators of the wifi standards) engineer an Ultra Wide Band network specification using the entire RF spectrum.
The FCC can pro-ratedly buy back the spectrum that the they have licensed out and been paid for and then the communications and backbone providers can start putting up towers for Ultra Wide Band.
Ultra Wide Band is inevitable, eventually we will transition our communications system to it, the question is how long is it gonna take?
With the lack of technologically minded politicians in Washington D.C. along with the moneyed interests who benefit from the current environment, probably another 50 years.
The only thing preventing this from happening in the next 5-10 years is the political will and the demand from U.S. citizens to have a truly net neutral open access broadband network running over the People’s Airwaves.
That said, Comcast, Verizon, and others own the fiber optic cable and coaxial cable that runs along the streets and into their customers homes. They should be able to decide what it is used for and what travels on it.
With an Ultra Wide Band network over the public airwaves (that are collectively owned by we the people), we would have a legitimate right to make it a requirement that in order to get a license to provide UWB connectivity services over the public airwaves they must provide content neutral bandwidth.
Comcast, Verizon, and others do not want net neutrality because they want to be the only companies able to provide video on demand and telephone service to their customers.
The higher the bandwidth their users have and the more television programming that becomes available to stream over the internet in HDTV quality, the more their customers will cancel their traditional cable television service.
If I can get TV for free over the internet and my internet connection is fast enough to stream HDTV, what do I need traditional television service for?
These companies know this, that is a major reason why bandwidth speeds in the U.S. lag behind many other parts of the world, and that is why they are fighting net neutrality.
The reason other countries are not behind the curve in broadband access is fairly simple: They have more actual Competition than we do. While the US News Media keep pushing the idea that the US has a “Free Market” economy, the actual truth is that the US has effective Monopolies in almost every area. Oligarchies and price fixing at best.
The very conditions which allow companies like Comcast to ignore the complaints of their customers.