FCC Moves to Regulate Internet

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

The United States has long been the touchstone of Internet freedom, and considering that it basically controls important aspects of its infrastructure via ICANN, obviously any moves by Congress or via regulatory changes pushed by the FCC, these are going to have implications far beyond the United States' borders.

There is no such thing as "Internet Freedom" above and beyond that which already exists in other forms of communications. If the Americans control such important aspects, then there is even less "freedom" from an international perspective. The US government has very specific domestic and international impact on the "internet" in ways that transcend anything the FCC can dream of.

Governments around the world have basically taken a back seat on the issue of net neutrality. Part of the problem is that there is no single expansive definition, and it seems to mean different things to different groups. But the general idea that ISPs, particularly top tier providers, shouldn't be traffic limiting or blocking certain packets over other ones because of the type of data being transmitted or because of the source or destination seems a good one to me.

I disagree....especially in the case of a private ISP with service levels and conditions subject to contractual obligations. Some packets are far more important than others. Added value means a price and priority differential, just like any other product or service.

These providers, not just in the US, but elsewhere, have tried to argue that governments have no business telling them what to do, but I call BS on it because, at least in Europe and North America, the Telcos and cable companies, in particular, have basically enjoyed a big fat gift from the taxpayer over the last century through free right-of-ways and major subsidies for last mile wiring. That they have received such substantial largess strikes me as an argument that they cannot simply assume themselves immune to government policies like net neutrality.

"Net neutrality" is a concept, not a government requirement.

dre · June 21, 2010

There is no such thing as "Internet Freedom" above and beyond that which already exists in other forms of communications. If the Americans control such important aspects, then there is even less "freedom" from an international perspective. The US government has very specific domestic and international impact on the "internet" in ways that transcend anything the FCC can dream of.

I disagree....especially in the case of a private ISP with service levels and conditions subject to contractual obligations. Some packets are far more important than others. Added value means a price and priority differential, just like any other product or service.

"Net neutrality" is a concept, not a government requirement.

Yup and hopefully that gets fixed.

GostHacked · June 21, 2010

There is no such thing as "Internet Freedom" above and beyond that which already exists in other forms of communications. If the Americans control such important aspects, then there is even less "freedom" from an international perspective. The US government has very specific domestic and international impact on the "internet" in ways that transcend anything the FCC can dream of.

I doubt you hold the same view when it comes to the Great Firewall of China.

And they way they control it is through DNS. Something that the US will not give up. It was a debate it should be an independant 3rd party to control DNS. IF you own this, you own how and where content is delivered. And the reason many should be concerned is that it will have global impacts not just local.

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

I disagree....especially in the case of a private ISP with service levels and conditions subject to contractual obligations. Some packets are far more important than others. Added value means a price and priority differential, just like any other product or service.

And once again we see how when two people talk about net neutrality, they are often talking about different things. I'm not saying ISPs can't rate limit traffic, to some extent they have to, because otherwise congestion would wipe them out. The old methods of simple traffic halving is ineffective under very high loads. And I'm not saying that basing access to bandwidth shouldn't be part of a pricing structure (this has been done since the days of ISDN). The Telcos have gone to great lengths to confuse the situation by equating that sort of rate limiting with something quite different.

What I'm talking about, for instance, is where, say, AT&T creates their own web portal/online doc system and decides to make access to Google slow by marking packets to and from Google as low priority or even using more potent forms of QoS and traffic shaping, while giving preferential priority to packets to and from their own system. This is clearly anti-competitive, and considering the size of AT&T's networks, it could do Google real harm.

Another, more likely example is VoIP, where Telcos would be using QoS technology to interfere with independent VoIP technology which directly competes with their land line services, and not even just with their own customers trying to use MagicJack or Vonage (which, while I think is nasty and anti-competitive can to some degree be justified), but potentially from outside sources (ie. some guy using some sort of IP phone from a competing cable company suddenly finding his phone working terribly because the Telco he's calling into has put in equipment that creates high latency for packets identified as outside VoIP).

Like I said, the government has acted on this in the past. Telcos, for instance, are not allowed to block calls from competing Telcos, that's the whole point of common carrier status. Arguing that Internet services, most of which are carried on exactly the same fiber and copper, should be treated differently seems disingenuous to me.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

I doubt you hold the same view when it comes to the Great Firewall of China.

Of course I would...China can do as it pleases for Chinese interests.

And they way they control it is through DNS. Something that the US will not give up. It was a debate it should be an independant 3rd party to control DNS. IF you own this, you own how and where content is delivered. And the reason many should be concerned is that it will have global impacts not just local.

Right...which leaves us right back to square one...if the US is "critical infrastructure", then it gets to make some of the rules. Unless someone else wants to assume that role and make the investment. There must be another Al Gore somewhere else in the world.

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Right...which leaves us right back to square one...if the US is "critical infrastructure", then it gets to make some of the rules. Unless someone else wants to assume that role and make the investment. There must be another Al Gore somewhere else in the world.

For the last fifteen years everyone else has been trying to break the US's control of ICANN, but the US won't give it up. You really need to catch up on all of this.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

For the last fifteen years everyone else has been trying to break the US's control of ICANN, but the US won't give it up. You really need to catch up on all of this.

Why should/would it? Just to be "nice guys"?

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Why should/would it? Just to be "nice guys"?

You wrote:

Right...which leaves us right back to square one...if the US is "critical infrastructure", then it gets to make some of the rules. Unless someone else wants to assume that role and make the investment. There must be another Al Gore somewhere else in the world.

I responded that the international community, or at least some members of it, have been trying to do that for fifteen years.

Do you have any kind of cohesive point, or is this just some sort of bizarre pro-American jingoism on your part? You try to score some rhetorical point suggesting that no one wants to assume that role, and then when I point that others have been trying, at least so far as root domains go, you reply with the absurdity above.

It's like your some sort of automated post machine, unaware of what even you posted a couple of posts above. How do you function without being able to put your own thoughts in context? It baffles me. I've met plenty of annoying nationalist types, but even they make more sense than you.

For the record, the US controls key aspects of the Internet infrastructure, in particular the big root domains (.com, .org, .net, etc.), and has an effective veto on any new root domains (it has repeatedly blocked, for instance .xxx). What's more, because ICANN basically controls who gets the major root servers, which it has continually given over to Network Solutions, a contractor with a long history of abusive behavior in how it uses its key root servers to benefit itself and at the expense of the infrastructure itself, there has been concern that refusal to deliver this key part of the infrastructure to an international body might lead to serious issues. Network Solutions behavior at times has been quite irresponsible, it's infamous interfering with failed DNS lookups (the RFCs which govern how protocols work require an explicit failure for host names that don't exist), in favor of returning what amounts to a page trying to sell these non-existent domains caused serious problems for mailservers around the globe that used failed lookups as a major means of sifting out spam. ICANN did manage to force Network Solutions' hand on this one, but then delivered the contract back to NS anyways.

bjre · June 21, 2010

Why should/would it? Just to be "nice guys"?

US said it has democracy, actually, it is the most powerful dictator in this world, the only purpose of this is robbery, for take money by the game rules they created and force others to follow. Actually, it is not US, it is only a very small group of people there, they are the dictators, they love that. And most American people there has to obey those rules too and give out their money, or go to prisons so that they can easily change role from giving money to taking money without work.

GostHacked · June 21, 2010

I responded that the international community, or at least some members of it, have been trying to do that for fifteen years.

Quite right, it's been an on going battle for some time. The potential to shut the whole net or a good deal of it, out side of the US is very high. That ability to shut down and control most of the Internet exists because, the protocols, software and hardware are designed like this. It was only a few years ago with the DNS issue. Europe wanted an independent 3rd party to monitor and control the DNS so it would not be held hostage. I've said it here that much can be controlled through DNS, but I was called crazy or something.

Good post TB.

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

US said it has democracy, actually, it is the most powerful dictator in this world, the only purpose of this is robbery, for take money by the game rules they created and force others to follow. Actually, it is not US, it is only a very small group of people there, they are the dictators, they love that. And most American people there has to obey those rules too and give out their money, or go to prisons so that they can easily change role from giving money to taking money without work.

Before we go too far down this road, you might need to be reminded that most of the infrastructure of the Internet, basic protocols and such, were in fact invented by Americans working for the American government, and at least initial roll-outs were pretty much completely funded by the American government. Those protocols and standards were adopted by other countries, but certain core infrastructure functions remained in American hands.

As to the rest of your post, well, it's just a bunch non-sequiturs strung together. You're giving me a pretty good picture of the penis envy the Chinese have for the US, though.

Shady · June 21, 2010

Great story on this subject today from CNBC.

For almost two decades the U.S. government has kept its meddlesome mudhooks off the Internet, freeing it to spread its kudzu-like tendrils into the global economy. And it worked.
The FCC took a big step this week to end all of that. For the first time, the Federal Communications Commission proposes using a set of 75-year-old phone regulations to oversee the Net of the 21st century and have a say in the prices that companies like AT&Tand Comcast can charge. And set rules for what traffic they must carry. (Comcast is acquiring a 51 percent stake in NBC Universal’ CNBC’s parent company. The deal is awaiting regulatory approval.)

Some telecom execs say the FCC’s agenda is downright radical. It could thwart high hopes for the wireless Internet, centerstage of the next digital revolution. The agency assault could restack the pecking order of winners and losers and reshape their stock prices, affecting the portfolios of millions of retirees and investors. It would impose new burdens on big carriers, while granting new power to content purveyors

...

The shareholders of AT&T and Verizon and Comcast and TimeWarner Cable paid to build those fat pipes—not government. And the carriers made that investment without monopoly protection, unlike the phone networks erected over a century ago.

CNBC

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Great story on this subject today from CNBC.

And hopelessly inaccurate. Much of that infrastructure was underwritten by various jurisdictions in the US via right-of-ways and last-mile subsidies.

Shady · June 21, 2010

And hopelessly inaccurate.

Yes, I'm sure you as an internet forum poster know much more about this than the CNBC technology expert. :rolleyes:

GostHacked · June 21, 2010

Yes, I'm sure you as an internet forum poster know much more about this than the CNBC technology expert.

Those who want to implement archaic rules to modern technology rarely understand the technology.

The article is somewhat true, but does not get to the root of how Internet traffic can be controlled which seems to be the focus on the new bill.

From your article

Some telecom execs privately have signaled to the FCC that they may accept some new FCC rules on wireline service into homes, if the FCC would back off and let the mobile Internet remain unfettered and footloose.

You can't apply one set of rules for wired and another for wifi. The delivery method to the routers is the same. The protocol is the same.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

I responded that the international community, or at least some members of it, have been trying to do that for fifteen years.

WTF does that mean? "International community"???? LOL!

Do you have any kind of cohesive point, or is this just some sort of bizarre pro-American jingoism on your part? You try to score some rhetorical point suggesting that no one wants to assume that role, and then when I point that others have been trying, at least so far as root domains go, you reply with the absurdity above.

That's not trying very hard.

It's like your some sort of automated post machine, unaware of what even you posted a couple of posts above. How do you function without being able to put your own thoughts in context? It baffles me. I've met plenty of annoying nationalist types, but even they make more sense than you.

Oh...this means that you are getting pissed or at least annoyed. Congratulations.

For the record, the US controls key aspects of the Internet infrastructure....

More whining....in fact the USA ceded control with incremental steps over several years.

Edited June 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Yes, I'm sure you as an internet forum poster know much more about this than the CNBC technology expert.

I spent ten years as a network and system administrator for an ISP, spending a great deal of time dealing with various anti-spam solutions, and was one of the tens of thousands of mail administrators bit in the ass by Network Solutions' stunts. I know a great deal about the technology, not to mention the history of the infrastructure. I think I'm probably as qualified, if not moreso, than some "technology expert" on a news sight (I place technology journalism in the same neighborhood as science journalism, a very bad place to get accurate information from).

The fact is that most, if not all, Western governments substantially underwrote the telecommunications networks you see today.

Edited June 21, 2010 by ToadBrother

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

WTF does that mean? "International community"???? LOL!

It means what it means.

That's not trying very hard.

Well, I could say you're an ignorant moron, but I was trying a bit of circumlocution to spare you. I guess you're saying I needn't bother.

Oh...this means that you are getting pissed or at least annoyed. Congratulations.

No, just confused. Because you are an ignorant moron, your statements don't carry all that much weight anyways. But aping the telco line suggests that on top of being an ignorant moron, you're also probably lacking in any capacity to even bother investigating further. If it's good enough for the Baby Bells, it's good enough for you, eh?

More whining....in fact the USA ceded control with incremental steps over several years.

It hasn't ceded control of ICANN. It's allowed other countries to basically use their own root servers and insert the data into the main ones, which means that those countries control their own root domains (ie. .ca, .uk, .au and so forth), but as for adding other root domains, like the proposed .xxx, it has repeatedly vetoed, and because it controls the key root servers, that's it.

But you would know that, if you weren't an ignorant moron.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

I spent ten years as a network and system administrator for an ISP. I know a great deal about the technology, not to mention the history of the infrastructure.

Then why didn't you know the recent history of US concessions for ICANN?

I think I'm probably as qualified, if not moreso, than some "technology expert" on a news sight (I place technology journalism in the same neighborhood as science journalism, a very bad place to get accurate information from).

Of course you think you're qualified, except for "sight" and "site"!

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Then why didn't you know the recent history of US concessions for ICANN?

What concessions? ICANN still rules the roost as far as the big root domains, is still dominated by the US, and still contracts out to Network Solutions, or what us guys in the business like to call "Network Hell".

Of course you think you're qualified, except for "sight" and "site"!

Ah, a spelling flame, the last bastion of the ignorant moron.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

What concessions? ICANN still rules the roost as far as the big root domains, is still dominated by the US, and still contracts out to Network Solutions, or what us guys in the business like to call "Network Hell".

Don't make me kick your ass with links demonstrating US Dept of Commerce concessions and agreements for ICANN. Your outdated jive used to be true, Mr. Expert.

Ah, a spelling flame, the last bastion of the ignorant moron.

Spelling is fine, just wrong word! LOL!

ToadBrother · June 21, 2010

Don't make me kick your ass with links demonstrating US Dept of Commerce concessions and agreements for ICANN. Your outdated jive used to be true, Mr. Expert.

Spelling is fine, just wrong word! LOL!

Does ICANN still control the key root domains or not, oh ignorant moron?

Shady · June 21, 2010

Don't make me kick your ass with links demonstrating US Dept of Commerce concessions and agreements for ICANN. Your outdated jive used to be true, Mr. Expert.

Apparently he thinks he's an expert, because he's dealt with anti-spam issues. :rolleyes:

Conveniently, I haven't seen him back up anything he's said.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2010

Does ICANN still control the key root domains or not, oh ignorant moron?

Does the USA control ICANN, pantsed expert?

Edited June 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

dre · June 21, 2010

It means what it means.

Well, I could say you're an ignorant moron, but I was trying a bit of circumlocution to spare you. I guess you're saying I needn't bother.

No, just confused. Because you are an ignorant moron, your statements don't carry all that much weight anyways. But aping the telco line suggests that on top of being an ignorant moron, you're also probably lacking in any capacity to even bother investigating further. If it's good enough for the Baby Bells, it's good enough for you, eh?

It hasn't ceded control of ICANN. It's allowed other countries to basically use their own root servers and insert the data into the main ones, which means that those countries control their own root domains (ie. .ca, .uk, .au and so forth), but as for adding other root domains, like the proposed .xxx, it has repeatedly vetoed, and because it controls the key root servers, that's it.

But you would know that, if you weren't an ignorant moron.

Couldnt a competitor to ICANN emerge if was able to attract enough resolvers to to point at their root and TLDS, and eventually become authoritative in the same way ICANNs 13 machines are? Is the problem that it would be impossible to build the consensus required?