var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 23, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Is it sad that I am already assuming the Telecoms and such are going to find all sorts of creative workarounds and loopholes to these new rules to continue to be restrictive with content and access?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Covertghost
October 26, 2009 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: They'll just call everything they don't like unlawful.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Munchie
October 25, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: All of this makes for a pretty interesting scenario. Of all the comments I have read so far no one has mentioned much on a little technical issue. If people don't like a law, they usually ignore it en mass. With this type of legislation put into place there could only be one result, encryption. Take a look at the TOR anonymiser network and others like it. Just encrypt all information going to and from you through a peered network. All general traffic patterns will be random and without meaning. The packets themselves will be encrypted against being read.

This will have many negative consequences for those in charge of legislation and isp traffic management. First is that traffic will no longer be able to be intercpted and inspected, sad NSA and other traffic monitoring entities. Second is that traffic will get no better prioritization. So VOIP time sensitive traffic will have the same priority as the kid down the street watching a live stream of skater getting hit in the nuts by a hand railing.

The point here is that everything being proposed it a legal solution to a societal problem. Try to goad people with law, they know they can't all be caught. Try to setup a technical roadblock, routing around will become a standard feature.

Example A: RIAA / MPAA suing everyone they could.
The reality? More people found out they could do this and record numbers of people are pirating materials.

Example B: Comcast throttled bit torrent packets using the sand vine application.
The reality? People learned how to anonymous their ports and encrypt their traffic. So their downloads will go at the speeds they used to.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 23, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: They will. I am also concerned about them pressuring or forcing employees to shill for them in the public commentary to make it look like the public supports the actions of AT&T et al.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Worked in healthcare, along with a healthy dosage of FUD to stir up the birthers, deathers, Beck-ers, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: It's not sad. It's just inevitable that they will try. However, if the FCC does their job correctly, it will only be an act which will shoot the ISPs in the foot. If the ISPs find loopholes to the rules, act upon them, and the result is exactly what the FCC was trying to stay away from then the FCC will impose more rules. No one wants that to happen and ideally we shouldn't have to, but that choice is left in the hands of the ISPs as to whether or not they are going to make their own beds like that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brazell
October 23, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, let's look forward to monthly bandwidth caps.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
October 23, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brazell: What's to look forward to? Comcast already caps my monthly bandwidth usage. I'm sure that if anything, they'll just lower the cap by 100GB or so, or up their prices, at which point I'll just cancel my internet service altogether.


Yeah I know that it wouldn't really send a message to Comcast. They don't care enough about their customers under usual circumstances, and they can just fill the void I'd be leaving with another eager sucker. Still, I think I'd rather just go without than be jerked around. Well, jerked around more than I already am, that is. It's the principle of the thing. :P


It's just unfortunate that there's no competition in my neck of the woods. It's either Comcast or nothing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
October 23, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brazell: This would happen anyway.

Until I see an ISP make a formal promise not to cap bandwidth, not to raise prices, and not to restrict access if Net Neutrality goes away, I reject every doom-and-gloom claim made by ISPs.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think it's interesting that they are qualifying the access with the term \"lawful.\" It seems that there is at least an argument that would allow them to still shape packets from BitTorrent and other sources of ill-gotten media/applications.

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: i think that's designed mostly to allow ISPs to deny access to kiddie porn & related nasties.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto:
what it's designed for and what it's used for are not necessarily the same.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: true, but bit torrent, p2p & usenet are not unlawful, so i fail to see what your problem is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto:
I absolutely agree the protocols themselves are lawful. The problem is, a large portion of the content transmitted over those protocols is not. To some extent, they could be seen as akin to a \"front\" business of an illegal enterprise.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Allow me to respond by beginning with one of my favorite quotes:

\"Blaming bit torrent for piracy is like blaming forks for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.\"

I really don't like your \"front business\" comparison. That same logic would be like saying the idea of protecting yourself with gun is a \"front business\" for committing murder. Yes, guns are used to hurt/kill people but that doesn't mean that we should allow them to be banned because they are sometimes used in an unlawful way.

The same goes for the bit torrent protocol. Yes, the protocol is used to download data, but that doesn't mean we should allow it to be banned because it is sometimes used in an unlawful way.

Doing so would only kill innovation. It wouldn't stop piracy at all because the pirates will just resort to a new way to gain access to the data they want.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame:
I suppose my point here is being lost. In my opinion, if the purpose of this legislation is to ensure full neutrality, putting the word \"lawful\" in the rule is not going to easily accomplish that. Having \"lawful\" in the rule merely creates potential ambiguity and gives the providers something to argue, and the right judge might agree with them. The argument that they can shape bittorrent packets because, in their view, the vast majority of bittorrent traffic is illegal is not entirely without merit.

I understand that \"lawful\" might be in there to attempt to avoid child porn, etc., but is that really necessary? Child porn is already criminal, why does it need to be addressed here?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
October 23, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I think everyone who is attacking you does not understand what you are saying or how this is likely to work.

First, the FCC has proposed a rule which will likely be adopted (that does not mean it is legislation - administrative rules are like legislation but they are not exactly the same thing as if Congress passes a law and the president signs it).

It seems like this rule is in response to ISPs saying they would like to restrict what their users can access. Therefore the rule is restricting what ISPs can do however you correctly point out that the word lawful modifies the access.

This is how it would work everyone - an ISP thinks Bittorrent is mainly used for illegal content or you are using it for illegal content and they block you. Then YOU have to complain to the FCC and you will be given some sort of hearing either on paper or in front on an ALJ (which I note is not an article 2 judge). Then the party that loses may appeal the administrative decision but these appeals rarely succeed because of Chevron deference.

Sound complicated and technical? It is and that is the point.

Is this a win for consumers? Yes! Does Esquire99 though have a point yes! - An ISP has a good argument due to the ambiguity of the word lawful to be able to shut down certain bit torrent access.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP: Yes, I was aware that was his point. However, I think you are wrong. The word \"lawful\" is not ambiguous in this case. It may seem like it if you only read what has been written in the consumerist article here because that is just an outline (no offense consumerist), but the official PDF document goes on to explain a lot of detail about what exactly is on the table.

Beyond that, the law has already been defined in the sense that we know what data is legal and what data is illegal. If there are cases where ambiguity takes place then there is nothing that the FCC can do about that because they don't make the law. That job lies in the hands of the legislative branch. It is 100% separate from these net neutrality rules.

Also, do not forget that none of these new rules empower the ISPs at all. Therefore, there is nothing new that will occur which could not have happened before these rules are put into place. The only reason why something might happen afterward is because the ISPs were afraid to act before the net neutrality rules are solidified because they don't want to do anything which might aide to creation of such regulation. In other words, if there is something which happens after the rules are put into place it will not be due to the actual rules. It will be due to either the absence of enough rules or because it involves something which never had anything to do with the intention of these net neutrality rules in the first place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP: i don't see where the ambiguity exists. the document repeatedly stresses that ANY discrimination better come with a clear & concise data management policy. there's no grey area there. will ISPs still be able to block traffic? yes, but they won't be able to hide behind ambiguity like comcast first tried when users caught them janusing their network. they will have to outright say, \"we're blocking this & here's why.\" to me, that would make it easier to combat management. before, ISPs simply denied it was happening, even when presented with all kinds of data that proved they were discriminating.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
October 23, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: @Naame: I don't know that I was specifically responding to your comments. The main point is that if an ISP wants to they can try and block certain file sharing they feel is illegal.

What redress comes from the individual or the ISP after that is actually not spelled out yet as the FCC rulemaking document asks for suggestions on the subject. However, it will be the ISP to act first and then the consumer/FCC to respond. Of course as you note this rule is meant to restrict what an ISP does so if they block something they do so at their own peril especially if the FCC decides that large fines may be levied against those who violate the rule.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 7:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP: Yeah, I agree with all of that.

I think it will be very interesting to say the least. if the ISPs try to block torrent traffic on a mass scale. I can totally see some very dedicated people who are subjected to such a practice setting up what are basically sting operations and reporting it to the FCC. All it would take is setting up a perfectly legal torrent, catching the ISP blocking it, and filing the report to get the wheels turning. Now, multiply that scenario by the thousands and you got yourself some potentially realistic backlash which will draw the attention of a lot of people through the grapevine of the internet. Of course, such a thing will not even be necessary unless I am wrong about how impossible it is for ISPs to isolate illegal torrent traffic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP:
Thank you. I concede that I wrongly used the term legislation when I should have said administrative rule.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: The main reason why the term \"lawful\" is being used so much is because the FCC is not above the law. They are not in a position to say that the transfer of illegal data should be permitted and even though that is generally understood they need to make it clear in their language. That is the answer to your question regarding, \"why does it need to be addressed here?\"

You are correct that the providers both can and will argue that they should be able to block traffic under the assumption that it is illegal, but both the FCC and judges are not allowed to determine what is and isn't legal. That is the job of legislative branch. However, I do agree that there is some work which needs to be done in that area of law. Especially copyright law.

Regardless, the entire point of these rules is so that data is not discriminated against. The FCC and the ISPs know that. The ISPs will not be able to universally shape all bit torrent packets because if they do then they will be shaping legal packets such as those transferred amongst over 10 million World of Warcraft subscribers whenever a patch is available for download. Not to mention the vast amount of legal content everywhere else. Also, remember that a lot of content is legal for some to download, but illegal for others based on a variety of different circumstances.

My point is that it is so ridiculously complicated for the ISPs to create an automated system which is capable of determining which bit torrent traffic is illegal and which is not. Therefore, the ISPs are not going to mess with it in fear of getting slapped by the FCC which I guarantee you that they will.

The only way that the ISPs will ever be able to do what you are talking about is the following:

1. Those in charge of the FCC change hands and are replaced by those who are corrupt.
2. The legislative branch of government creates new laws which condemn that all bit torrent traffic is illegal.
3. The ISPs somehow find a way to isolate illegal bit torrent traffic from legal bit torrent traffic on a mass scale and automatically (I think this is impossible).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: i believe it's addressed b/c ISPs already work with law enforcement to control the flow of things like child porn. NOT addressing it here could result in them losing that ability.

[news.cnet.com]
[www.securityfocus.com]
[yro.slashdot.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thereij
October 23, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Bittorrent itself is a lawful application and the protocol for transfer is a legal protocol. It's what people put on the network that may be legal/illegal. An ISP would have a hard time convincing a court that they can tell what the illegal and legal Torrents are.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@thereij:
There is still at least a legit argument that the vast majority of content transmitted over bittorrent is illegal and the right judge might agree with them. As was mentioned above, look at the Napster case. I think that if the ISPs could somehow prove that say (and I'm just making this number up) 85% of the content on bittorrent is copyrighted and thus illegal to download, that some judge might say \"Ok, that's enough for you to conclude that it's probably illegal and to shape it.\" I'm not saying it's a winning argument, but it could certainly lead to litigation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
October 23, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I think some circuit court in the US already ruled that there was nothing illegal about bit-torrent and while it is used for illegitimate purposes it is also used legitimately. Thus they are using the precedent set by the ruling over VHS back when the movie studios were scared out of their wits that people were going to be making bootleg tapes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
October 23, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: If they didn't include the term \"lawful\", then that would imply that despite it being illegal, pedophiles have the right to get child pornography online. If the implication is that the telecoms should be attempting to distinguish between lawful and unlawful content, that is however fairly disturbing in its own right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 23, 2009 3:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: Without the \"lawful\" term added it might open a loophole for people flooding sites with traffic or them from stopping the traffic coming from a subscribers machine where the machine was obviously hijacked and being used to push a denial of service attack or something similar.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
October 23, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I was thinking the same thing. Bittorrent itself isn't illegal, but that it can be used to download illegal content might just allow them to continue to do that. @_@

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101 and dragonfire81: Actually, it is the exact opposite. The ISPs are not being granted any additional power here at all. Anything that they do after net neutrality becomes law (it will) are things they have been both capable and permitted to do for a long time now. The new rules make it much hard for them to do that sort of stuff to bit torrent. It is anything but a \"workaround\".

The only thing that the ISPs could do to \"block\" any individual torrent transfer would be to prove that the data being transferred is illegal which cannot be done until after the transfer takes place. Meaning, they cannot be proactive about blocking it. They can only be reactive about it which is of no value to them. It is only of value to organizations like the RIAA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
October 23, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: I didn't say that they were being granted any additional power, just wondering whether or not net neutrality would really keep them from doing what they're already doing after all. ;)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: I should clarify my previous statement a bit. It might be possible for the ISPs to prove without a shadow of a doubt that a particular bit torrent transfer is illegal before or while the transfer takes place. I just have no idea how they will do it other than downloading individual torrents themselves, determine that the content is illegal for anyone who downloads it (much emphasis on the \"anyone\" part), and then block any transfer for that one specific torrent on that one specific tracker.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
October 23, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101: Which ties directly into my previous post about telecoms finding workarounds in the proposal to go ahead and keep doing what they are doing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sqlrob
October 23, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:
It doesn't allow them to shape Bit Torrent.

World of Warcraft uses torrents. Linux distros use torrents.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 23, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: If and only if they could prove that content from BitTorrent is illegal.

On the one hand, no, they can't. It's simply file sharing, and could be used in legal ways.

On the other hand, the Napster case showed us that the courts aren't quite that ignorant. (Napster, too, could be used for legal means, but that didn't stop them from coming down hard on Napster.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: I think you've got it backwards. You'd have to prove it legal. If Comcast sends a love letter* that your torrent packets are being sent to a black hole instead of peers because it's \"illegal\", your recourse it to file a complaint with the FCC. In that complaint, the burden then falls on you to say that your traffic is legal... I don't expect the FCC to hand out fines or order unblocking on just one subscribers' say so.

* Such notification is needed with the new FCC principal

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: Assume a packet is illegal, then put the burden upon the user to prove that it is legal? That's like assuming someone is guilty until proven innocent. I'm pretty sure that if it doesn't violate the letter of the rules, it still wouldn't stand up.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 23, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sorry, what? I was distracted by FCC Kitten.


Where were we? Oh right, net neutrality. Basically, the FCC is telling the telecoms, \"Look, we agree that you should have the right to shape your business and run your companies the way you want them to - but we disagree that this means you should be allowed to run wild.\"


The reason why the telecoms have such difficulty swallowing this is because they've had their hands in the cookie jar far too long - they've had a taste, and they don't want to share the power. They've spent so long screwing over people for money, why would they want to give it up? it's profitable. But it looks like the FCC really has its head on straight.


The next step is figuring out how the telecoms intend to regulate the flow of unlawful web traffic. No one denies it's there. Unlawful web traffic won't get the same kind of fairness presented by the FCC, but what will it get?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dondegroovily
October 24, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: \"Unlawful web traffic won't get the same kind of fairness presented by the FCC, but what will it get?\"

A warrant. Or supoena.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
October 23, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I think the telecoms have gone past just putting (& keeping) their hands in the cookie jar. They've climbed in and have eaten all the cookies and are now licking the wall for every remaining crumb. And if any more cookies are added to said jar, they will eat them too and not share 'em with us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 23, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: If Comcast adopted that kitten as its logo, I'd happily pay $120/mo for dialup and postcards of True Blood publicity photos mailed to me every week.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 23, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Like I've said before, the providers will be happy to institute caps if and when these rules go into effect.

The only reason they want to ban certain content is because that content is, more often than not, a strain on bandwidth. And that's what they really care about: bandwidth. If they can't control bandwidth use by discriminating against certain content, they'll find other ways to control it.

It's not that I don't agree with these FCC rules, I wholeheartedly do. But I also know that corporations like this will do whatever they can to save a buck.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
KMan13 still wants a Pontiac G8
October 25, 2009 9:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: so why doesn't FIOS need to do this? they're huge already and have no caps or restrictions. jus sayin..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: This argument makes no sense because if doing so was actually projected to bring them more money then they either would have done it already or are going to do it regardless of how this net neutrality stuff pans out.

Last I checked, all businesses are in the business to make as much money as possible. The ISPs are not holding on things like bandwidth caps and tiered pricing just to be nice. They are holding off for a reason and that reason somehow links to what they think will bring them the most money.

However, I will say this. It is very possible that the only reason why the ISPs have not imposed such nasty stuff like you suggest on us is because they feared it would only guarantee further the implementation of net neutrality law. In which case, if they lose this battle then there is no longer any reason to wait on imposing the new policies unless they continue to fear more regulation which they should. The point though is that if that happens to be the case then the only reason why we are not subjected to such things already is due to net neutrality.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
exconsumer9
October 23, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: I've got to say that I don't really understand this argument: It will be a strain on bandwidth. . . . but, if their restrictions work, wouldn't traffic to the sites they encouraged become the new strain on bandwidth?

I mean, take a busy arterial street, one that's so busy and convenient that it often gets clogged. Would lowering the speed limit on that street or eliminating it altogether do a goddamn thing to alleviate traffic? Not at all. The reason it was arterial in the first place was to satisfy the demands of travelers/communters. It being full means less stress on the rest of the system. If you were to make that path more difficult, all you would do is force that traffic elsewhere. If you block Google, people still want to search, they would just search in some different way, and the bandwidth you just freed up would fill up via traffic to some other site. Bandwidth problems are only solved by more bandwidth, not by moving it around. People have already decided how they want to surf the internet.

The real issue here is the ISP's desire to create lucrative deals with content providers that will lead their subscribers to the sites the ISP has an agreement with. This would require an increase in infrastructure on the part of the ISP in order to provide inferior service. Losers all around.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SteveZim1017
October 23, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@exconsumer9: I agree that the companies are more concerned about bandwith and that the hypothetical \"what if X company and Y company team up to slow down z company\" probably would not happen. BUT its nice to know that if this goes through it CAN't Happen.


I say bring on the usage caps, you wanna torrent your 30 movies a month, knock yourself out. I'm tired of paying the same as you for far less data usage. stop clogging my tubes!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SteveZim1017: I can understand your \"clogging the tubes\" concern assuming that your slow speeds are actually due to heavy torrent usage in your area (it might not be you know), but don't complain about how much you are paying in comparison because you will have nothing to gain from it. The ISPs are not going to allow you to pay less than you pay now and make others who use more bandwidth pay more. They will only make more people pay more money and that's it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: It's not just bandwidth heavy content, its also choice of content. Meaning, that Comcast could enter into a deal with MS so that gmail and google search run very sllllooowwwwww. They could also block (ihatecomcast.com), or any political/policy website that they don't agree with. Without any real compeition in many (most?) areas, they can easily get away with this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
October 23, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Oh yeah, good point. I had actually forgotten about this aspect of it, and saw it more of an issue over ISP restricting content that they believe would overload their networks.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
October 23, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Shockingly, John \"Telcoms Are My Sugar Daddy\" McCain is already planning legislation preventing the FCC from controlling net neutrality.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 23, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: It's a little annoying that it's being phrased as the FCC \"enacting rules that would regulate the Internet.\" No, the FCC is enacting rules that would regulate the ISPs who are already regulating the internet by showing preference to certain types of content. If the FCC were to regulate the internet, it would put out measures discriminating against certain types of content. It's not doing that. It's saying that the tubes must be open and the information must flow.


I don't like excessive government regulation just as much as a lot of other conservatives. But these companies are abusing their power, and someone has to put them in their place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheWillow
October 24, 2009 5:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I know... but it's hard to word that the FCC is making rules to prevent ISPs from making rules.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mobius
October 23, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: McCain is pro rape for government contractors. It shouldn't come as a surprise that he's pro rape for the telcoms too. Yay, McCain! [www.republicansforrape.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
giggitygoo
October 26, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mobius:

Criticize McCain all you want on Net Neutrality, but he is definitely not in the tank for government contractors. Remember the whole 767 lease scam a few years back? McCain was the driving force to stopping that government giveaway to Boeing and the investigation that put a few execs in prison. Not to mention he's been against funding for the F22 for years. Let's keep the criticism where it's relevant - the fact that McCain is introducing legislation dealing with a topic that he himself admitted to having little experience with - the internet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 23, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: Hey, it's the Republican way. Yay, consistency!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheWillow: Yes, already introduced it. It's call The Internet Freedom Act. \"Freedom for who?\" I wonder.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 23, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Wow. They don't even try to hide the Orwellian nature of that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheSpatulaOfLove
October 23, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:

Freedom to rape and pillage consumers! Reminds me of how true the Capitol One ads are to reality...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
October 23, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.\"

Subject to the needs of law enforcement? What does this mean? What are the \"needs\" of law enforcement, as it pertains to my personal computer's applications?

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Ok, I read through the official PDF a lot to gain an understanding of many details including your concern.

Basically, what I have come to understand is that these rules are trying to permit you to run any application that you want as long as it is isn't illegal, and that it does not interfere with what is needed in order for \"law enforcement, public safety, and national security authorities\" to do their job.

In other words, you are not allowed to do thing like run web applications or wireless applications which disrupt their ability to communicate even if it is completely unintentional and technically legal (even though it probably shouldn't be).

In regards to potential abuse, I really don't see it happening in this case, but remember that when you give anyone power of any kind then it is subject to potential abuse whether that person/group is government related, belongs to a corporation, small business, religious group, non-profit organization, etc, etc, etc. That's just the way power works.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 23, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: How would they interpret, say PGP or other public-key encryption schemes (or other technologies with broad, legitimate uses that OMG TERRORISTS might also rarely use)?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I want to say that is impossible unless new rules are created or the current rules are amended, but I cannot say for sure. I suppose that all depends on who you ask that is in charge of both the FCC and the ISPs at the time. However, I would imagine that since the entire intent of these rules is to prevent discrimination like that then any attempt to ban such a thing will not be permitted.

However, I will say this much with more certainty...if that sort of ban didn't happen in the Bush era then it will take quite a bit of work for it to happen in the future. I most certainly will not happen in the near future.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Well under Bush II, we all decided that having our taffic monitored without a warrant was no big deal, because they were only looking at the communications of terrorists and liberals. So, you're fine with that, right?


But really, assuming that the government gets an appropriate warrant, they should be able to monitor selected traffic. Now, if the whole purpose of your application or use is to do something illegal, then they could throttle your bandwidth or reduce access in some way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
October 23, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: This paragraph refers to applications running on my PC, it makes no mention of taking over my bandwidth, or diverting things - it just says that I am free to run whatever applications I want, except for whatever law enforcement needs. Someone must be able to more clearly define that, because frankly it doesn't make one bit of sense to me. Although it does sound rather open-ended and rife for abuse.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 23, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Maybe it means that if there is an emergency nearby which demands more resources, the ISP can divert more bandwidth to them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I am not certain but I believe that it is just a poorly worded summary of the actual language within the official documentation.

Basically, it means that if law enforcement needs to use a service or application that is needed to do their job then the ISPs cannot stop them or do anything which might lessen the performance of those services or applications.

At least, that is what I think they mean. I didn't read the official document yet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
October 23, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: Nope, it's not a summary. Direct language pulled from par. 5 of the document.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
October 23, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FrugalFreak:


It's highly unlikely that another company _couldn't_ build a cable network in your town - it's much more likely that nobody would want to, since the economics of being a cable overbuilder are terrible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
October 23, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You are entitled to run the services of your choice provided that they are legal.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Colonel Jack O'Neill
October 23, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the ISP's want to stop people from downloading illegal torrents, by limiting their bandwidth, they should be able to, cause those people are putting a strain on the network, and slowing it down for the rest of us who are doing legal things.

You don't own their network, it's not your network, so you just can't do anything you like.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
October 26, 2009 2:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: No, they shouldn't. You're not paying your ISP to tell you what you can or cannot use the network for. You're paying them for access to the Internet.

You think that torrents strain the network? What about YouTube, Hulu, spam, cloud computing, video conferencing, email, instant messaging... It all strains the network. Were you planning to ban everything? Or just the bits you don't like?

As for it not being 'our' network, would it be preferable then to nationalize all ISPs so that we can do what we like?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DrLumen
October 23, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill:
MacGyver smoker: All right, get me a toilet paper roll, a corkscrew, and some tin foil.
Friend: We don't have a corkscrew.
MacGyver smoker: All right then, get me an avocado, an ice pick, and my snorkel. Trust me, bro, I've made bongs with less. Hurry up!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: These rules do not stop them from doing so. What it does do is force the ISPs to prove that 100% of what they are blocking/limiting is actually illegal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
October 23, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: What is the difference between downloading a torrent of a newly released book or downloading a copy of the bible?

Both equally slow down your connection, though I really doubt it would actually slow down your connection.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
October 23, 2009 3:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: It's impossible for them to know the difference between a movie being downloaded or a copy of Linux. Just because bad people do bad things with torrents doesn't mean bittorrent itself is bad. Otherwise everything would be illegal.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 23, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There should also be a law mandating that if carriers want to charge customers for being OVER a cap, then they have to give a corresponding discount to customers who are UNDER a cap.
Stop using little old grannies emailing their grandkids as a profit center.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: As much as I would love for that to be apart of every ISP's policy and how much I support the new net neutrality rules, I do not think the government should force \"roll over bandwidth\" upon them.

Instead, I think the government needs to assist with transforming the ISP industry into one which flourishes in lots of consumer friendly competition because despite there being some \"choices\" in various locations in the US if you are lucky it is hardly a consumer friendly environment. The current ISPs are not as successful as they are now because they are offering quality services at competitive prices as proven by comparisons of other ISP services across the globe. They are succeeding this much due to lack of competition and real consumer choice. It is so difficult for new ISP competition to arise to the point where I dare say it is impossible unless you are already a massive rich corporation who has suddenly decided to become an ISP, get government approval to install the tubes (yes, you need that), and you are willing to invest billions to do so. Even then you are not guaranteed success at all consider the vast number of exclusive contracts that the current ISPs won bids for and last for years with rental communities, HOAs, and city/county government agencies. Oh, and good luck getting banks to approve loans of that size for such a thing. The list of blockades when it comes to introducing new competition goes on and on and on and on.

Should such a thing ever change (it desperately needs to) then we will see things like \"roll over bandwidth\" naturally in the spirit of REAL consumer friendly competition. Of course, we may not even need it because in an environment where such competition exists there may not be any bandwidth caps at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: I agree (I think). This is a good start, but the government should be encouraging competition to reduce the need to even enforce these rules. There are two prongs to this:


1) Eliminate government granted monopolies.
2) Fund infrastructure to bring more lines to more places. Don't give the money to the same telecoms that are trying to preserve their (virtual or real) monopoly.


The most controversial, but I think best, solution is to have the government install its own lines and then lease use to business. Meaning the government controls the pipes and then any business can hook up at the end points to deliver services. That means a company can either use a government line to deliver services or build their own. But it helps ensure there will always be competition and significantly reduces the barriers to entry that prevent competition. A \"Public Option\" for internet if you will.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: I agree with most of that. See below.

@Trai_Dep: Yes, it would be very much preferred that we start by sharing the tubes we do have.

Basically, I would like to combine both of your ideas and I would like to add one more. I want the bidding for exclusive contracts within residental areas (rental communities, HOA, etc) to be eliminated. I want all current contracts to stay put but once they expire they are over and done with. No new contracts. Doing that plus what you guys said would solve the competition problem imo. It would increase quality. It would lower prices. It would create jobs. Everyone wins in every way except the current ISPs who have had a monopolistic control over the industry for far too long now. The current ISPs won't go away by these changes. They may still even remain at the top. What it will do is force them to only be successful by providing quality service at competitive prices.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
October 23, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Naame: I believe the FCC has already dealt with the issue of exclusivity in HOAs and apartments, and said that such agreements are not lawful, as they limit consumer choice (including the choice to not have such service). If I'm thinking of this right, it was also done under Kevin Martin's FCC.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@s73v3r: Not exactly. What the FCC has done is make it against the rules for rental communities and HOAs to force their residents into a situation where they can only receive service from a single provider by contract. However, it is not against the rules to force residents to pay for a providers service as a part of their rent or HOA fees as long as those residents can purchase additional services too.

For example, my HOA forces me to pay for Comcast basic cable. Comcast won this contract with them through a bidding process. I cannot opt out of it. However, I can purchase DirecTV if I want to. So I never really get a real \"choice\" since I can never opt out of paying Comcast for their craptastic service. It was also the exact same arrangement in the apartment I previously lived in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 23, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Or, with the stroke of a pen, make the wires public carrier, with the cablers having to bid/share its signals with competitors in an open, transparent market.
It'd make the cablers truly Free Market, which is what they want. Right? Right?!

@Naame: Nonetheless - they can't have it both ways. If they want to charge heavy users EXTRA, they have to charge light users LESS. Otherwise it's a transparent power-play for unearned extra revenue. Which - uhh - it is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I don't know that its stroke of the pen. You've got a potential \"taking\" under the 5th Amendment if youre nationalizing pipes.


We also tried the lease at cost in the past. We required the telecoms to lease their pipes at cost. Two things happened:
1) they completely inflated their \"costs\"
2) they lobbied congress/FCC to get that rule to die. Bush II helped the speed up the process.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 24, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Well, the ISPs should get *something* for having to share their public thoroughfares, but something far less than they claimed last time.
These were granted (supposedly) as a public/private partnership to get the COUNTRY into the 21st Century, not as a perpetual money machine that blocks competition, which is what they've turned out to be. It's time to make the enabling legislation with its purported rationale of global competition - not favoring a handful of telecoms - live up to its words.
If it turns out that trusting ISPs (or telecoms) to fairly value accessing \"their\" tubes was a fiasco (and boy, was it), then the US needs to take a second hit at the bat, only with the national good and competition as the benchmark.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
FrugalFreak
October 23, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Does this mean cities must allow more than one provider to provide service?

Here I have 1 broadband provider, Brighthouse.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henneko
October 23, 2009 8:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FrugalFreak: I would like to think everything else here would pretty much follow naturally if the FCC actually broke the cable/DSL monopolies (broke for real, not like last time with the stupid regional Baby Bell plan). If any competitor tried to pull anything egregious, the other companies would be all over the airwaves with ads like \"You wouldn't buy a cellphone that kept you from calling your friends, so why buy broadband that keeps you from your favorite websites? Get The Real Internet from OtherCo today!\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kimaroo - 100% Pure Natural Kitteh
October 23, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I find comfort in the fact that they are actually trying to get something done about this. I also find comfort in starring at that kitten. So cute.. so fuzzy.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 23, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: I'm so ready for that open thread and the ensuing avalanche of cute animal photos.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: How can you say no to the cute FCC kitten? Who's a good net neutrality kitten? Who's a good neutrality kitten?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

in addition to disclosing active management before signup, i would also like to see a requirement that they notify users when it takes place. i would like to know when something is being blocked by my ISP; not just getting 404'd.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
October 23, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: If you get 404, you got to at least some server. That might be the ISP intercepting you. If they don't intercept, but do block, the connection just won't happen and you will eventually get a browser specific error when the connection attempt times out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: some of these content managers supposedly produce 'fake' 404s - i remember reading something about a UK ISP blocking access to the scorpion's wikipedia page last year b/c of their 'kiddie porn' album art.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Well if McCain gets his way, this may be a good compromise. What about when they throttle though? You don't get 404'ed and I'm not sure there's a notification mechanism.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: yeah, i'd like to see it with any active management of their network that negatively effects my ability to connect. it saves me countless hours troubleshooting a problem i can't correct.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
October 23, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Given that fourth rule, I don't understand the lack of competition.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
October 23, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: What do you mean? If you mean that you don't understand how the FCC thinks there's a lack of competition, you only have to look at individual markets. In my apartment complex, the only people you can get internet from are Cox and Verizon and the only cable provider was Cox. That's hardly competition.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FrugalFreak
October 23, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

Here there is only 1 provider of broadband.

Competition should be whether you live in metro or avg city.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pink Puppet
October 23, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, good. Now will someone please tell THIS moron?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 7:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pink Puppet: Oh this is just the beginning. Beck already got a hold of it and said that laws requiring having open and equal access to the content of the internet is the government controling what you can see.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alex Chasick
October 23, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Pink Puppet: I saw that yesterday... I had been suspecting anti-net neutrality folks of trying to conflate the two; it's nice to see someone do it openly like that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Coelacanth
October 23, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One of the cutest kittens posted on here in a while!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
October 23, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The ultimate solution is to completely separate the physical access (e.g. the wire or fiber to home and business) and the cloud access (companies that provide the IP address, routing, etc) and the content providers. That should provide an easy entry for competition among cloud access providers.

The big thing here should be competition. But that's something big corporations loath. You can be sure they will fight this so they can keep their anti-competitive monopoly.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
October 23, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen:
On an ideological level, I agree with you. Given that the physical lines can be classified as \"infrastructure,\" I don't really have an issue with the govt. owning them, so long as they don't put any limits on what can go across them. At that point, the govt. just leases the lines to whomever wants to open up shop in the area and charges a lease price based solely on cost-recovery.

Unfortunately, the system has already been built and it's in private hands. At this point, it would be a logistical nightmare to try and create govt. owned lines, which is why it will probably never happen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: THIS! i agree, nationalizing the infrastructure at this point would be pretty impossible, but i wish it had been done at the beginning. or maybe they could have started when all the fiber companies went bankrupt in the late 90's.

imagine how much more competitive the marketplace would be! local companies could actually sustain a profitable business model b/c they wouldn't have outlay the expensive infrastructure costs. that's the real barrier today - who can afford to enter into the industry besides the existent carriers?

i'd much rather see a gov't maintained infrastructure than subsidizing these corps with that b.s. USF.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
guitaraddict9
October 26, 2009 4:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto:
I believe who can afford it are actually local government bodies. But, as displayed last year, setting up a city-run internet provider will get the city SUED by the telecos, because they \"just can't compete\". Ha. Monopolies sure do allot for double standards.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: See above post. I explored the same idea. Despite \"nationalizing\" the lines it would actually increase compeition. Of course, once Beck and Hannity gets a hold of this, and the telco lobbyists kick into action, the screams of communism could be heard on the other side of the world.


@Esquire99: I'm not so sure its an impossible feat. We give huge amounts of money to telcos as subsidies. We're giving them even more under the stimulus plan to provide internet to underserved areas. We can see what they're doing with the money (or actually, not doing). We should use that money to either build out our own lines or nationalize the lines via a 5th Amendment taking.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: you mean this one?

How can you say no to the cute FCC kitten? Who's a good net neutrality kitten? Who's a good neutrality kitten?

=P

unfortunately, i don't see a realistic way to undertake this proposition now. like i said, when all the fiber cos. went bankrupt - THAT would've been the ideal time for the US to gobble up most of the nation's throughput, but we were in \"accelerated deregulation mode\" back then.

absent of a landmark sherman act breakup, what basis does the government have to start entering the marketplace?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
October 23, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: yeah, good luck with that. telcos are all about vertical integration. less 'mouths to feed'.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bpotterr
October 23, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So, if \"consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice,\" and they are expanding the rules to cover mobile broadband, does that mean Apple and AT&T will be forced to find a way to incorporate Flash content on the iPhone? Last I checked, Flash was \"lawful internet content.\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
henneko
October 23, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bpotterr: I bet I can download all the flash I wanted on an iPhone. The FCC isn't responsible for you being able to view it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
October 23, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Other requirements I would suggest adding:

1. Access ISPs must provide true IPv6 access (not tunnels) by 1 Jan 2011 for all but the last 100,000 customers, by 1 Jan 2012 for all but the last 10,000 customers, and by 1 Jan 2013 for all customers. IPv6 access is considered true if no routes or routing announcements are blocked or filtered.

2. IPv4 access may not be turned off before 19 Jan 2038.

3. Transport layers (ICMP UDP TCP SCTP DCCP) may not be blocked, although specific ports may be blocked per #4 below.

4. ISPs may block traffic to specific ports (and ping, counting it as 1 port) known to be targets of spamming, scamming, or other attacks. However, if a customer asks specifically for ports to be unblocked, they must be unblocked for that customer. If fewer than 20 ports are blocked, the ISP may require the customer specifically identify what ports to unblock. If 20 or more ports are blocked, the customer may make a blanket request to unblock all ports. The unblock must be completed within 3 business days (unless the blocking is performed in customer premise equipment that requires an on-site visit to re-configure, which case the unblock most be completed within 15 business days).

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
October 24, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Could you rephrase in English, please?
(What you say sounds interesting but it's incomprehensible in its geekawesomeness) :D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
goodpete
October 23, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen:

I like number 1. I wish it were that simple. But for most large ISPs, IPv6 won't be a \"lightswitch\" type of thing. There's not really a \"you have it\" or \"you don't have it\" sort of mechanism. It's a slow process that requires replacing or upgrading millions upon millions of dollars worth of equipment. Chances are you'll see limited IPv6 support (that does a lot of tunneling and funny routing) for a while before being able to route over it efficiently.

Don't worry about whether major ISPs will move to IPv6. They're running out of IPv4 addresses fast. And if they don't upgrade as soon as possible, they'll get to the point where they can't add customers (which would be a disaster!). So you can be sure they'll upgrade as soon as they can.

What's the deal with number 2? You can route IPv4 over IPv6 hardware just fine. It'd be next to impossible for any ISP to prevent IPv4 routing. And even if they could make it happen, why would they? It's not like most customers will even realize they've been transitioned.

I totally agree with numbers 3 and 4. Well, number 4 is a bit over-specific. It would be enough to say that customers should be allowed to opt out of any port blocking implemented by the ISP.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: To add to that, the ISP should have the ability to refuse to unblock if they can show its being used for unlawful/harmful purposes. Defining that will be the challenge, but can be done through a reasonable AUP. Essentially, innocent unless proven guilty rather than the opposite.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rellog321
October 23, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hope they take a reasonable approach to the VOIP situation. Since most ISP offer their own form of telephone service and would like nothing more than to throttle or forbid service to those companies... ditto for the video services...

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rellog321: Yes, those loopholes could be become big enough to drive a truck through it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TPK
October 23, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Someone needs to write up a tutorial on who the players are and WHY they hold the positions that they do... a \"what's in it for who\" kind of thing.

If we had a truthful assessment of that information, we could easily decide whether to support or oppose the idea.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
October 23, 2009 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TPK: How they got to this spot would be interesting (e.g. Ma Bell, Deregulation in 1996, line leasing failure, FCC approvals to merge, local and state governments granting monopolies, etc.). However, what's in it for who is a bit more obvious, assuming you're a rational person and not a huge Beck fan.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
stormbird
October 23, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've been hearing from the conservative end of the spectrum that this will somehow be bad for free speech. The theory seems to be that net neutrality will somehow end up with the Democrats somehow stifling free speech. No one seems able to explain how we go from corporations not being allowed to throttle down competitors' bandwidth to not being able to access blogs (perhaps the Underpants Gnomes are involved?). Can anyone here explain it?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
October 23, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@stormbird: No.

Something I found interesting as I read through those first 4 rules: they're deliberately phrased as rights that the consumer has that can't be taken away by a private company in the name of profit. I had originally re-written them as rules (e.g. \"Providers can't limit what consumers access\"), but then realized that by doing that, I was missing the point of Net Neutrality. It's not about restricting companies, it's about protecting consumers' rights--\"you can do whatever you want, company, provided you don't encroach on these principals.\"

To turn that around into some sort of attempt to stifle free speech is just... it makes my head hurt, must stare at kitteh some more.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
October 23, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@stormbird: I can't think of a single justification that makes sense which would support such a claim. I would think that these rules support the exact opposite in every way.

Even if the FCC will some day become saturated with corrupt individuals, it will be the ISPs who need to approach the FCC first in order to be permitted to ban something which relates to freedom of speech concerns. If the FCC wrongfully permits the ban then shame on those corrupt individuals at the FCC, but the rules themselves do not allow the FCC to threaten freedom of speech like that.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Sim9
October 23, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Except the FCC doesn't have congressional approval to regulate the internet... so none of these rules are really in their jurisdiction to enforce.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
October 23, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just heard that John McCain is proposing some sort of anti-net neutrality bill. Good thing the lawmaker proposing this stuff DOESNT KNOW HOW TO USE A COMPUTER

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GadgetsAlwaysFit
October 23, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Each item begins with \"Subject to reasonable network management,....\" which basically gives the ISP's a large, gaping hole to continue to use to throttle your network connection in the name of providing good service.
Quote: Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
October 25, 2009 1:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wouldn't the FCC have to monitor all internet content to make sure these rules are being followed?

If the NSA were doing this, the same people pushing for \"net neutrality\" would be pissed.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
KMan13 still wants a Pontiac G8
October 25, 2009 9:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

FiOS has no caps or restrictions and is managing quite well. They're huge already, and fast regardless of what's being used. If they can do it, so can everybody else. Jus' sayin...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
guitaraddict9
October 26, 2009 4:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can someone help me understand something?

Let's say the big wigs go through with their pay-per-byte agendas. What is going to happen to public hotspots that provide free wifi, or your local library, or school/university?

I'm a recent graduate who watched literally hundreds of college students waste time at the library on facebook/youtube. Granted, tuition costs cover this. (get ready for an increase, young scholars) If net neutrality (which I'm obviously a proponent for) is forced upon the providers, and network providers charge by data usage, isn't this going to result in non-neutral providers at the bottom of the chain? I can imagine your local coffee shop blocking youtube and facebook, along with universities, etc, to save money. Won't this defeat the purpose??

I'm right in thinking these net neutrality rules only apply to providers of content, and not the users who provide, such as schools/libraries/hotspots? (Couldn't think of a technical term...)

Seems to me that this would defeat the purpose for public usage, which would inherently change a good portion of how we use the net. It would certainly increase tuition rates and usage rates at hotels, etc.

I greatly desire net neutrality and the freedom to content. And for our private connections at home, net neutrality will certainly be important. But these rules don't seem like they can be the savior for our internet overall, because they only impact the big fish at the top, and not the ones who are paying money to provide us the service in public places.

Yes? Right? Maybe? Help???

Thanks.

Reply
","","","","");