McCain Moves to Block FCC Net Neutrality

Seems like there's alot on this site that have lost it. You can't see the forrest for the tree.....but, if it's labeled Republican....it's an automatic toss out. Nothing to be considered or researched at all. Wake up people.

This is actually a good thing McCain is doing (I know, shocker right?). Look, if any ISP decided that you should pay extra to go to Youtube or Newsvine or CNN or whatever then what would you do? Pretty simple, switch to a different provider that isn't doing it. Why are they creating laws for a problem that doesn't exist? No ISP is going to do this for the simple reason that they'll lose money. Right now about half of the big tech companies are for it and half are against it, and you know the ones that are on board are getting special treatment if this passes. This is a power grab by the FCC, nothing more.

Sorry Beat, many ISPs have effective regional monopolies.

And its not only that they can make you pay extra, they can also make those sites pay extra making smaller internet businesses harder to form or maintain online.

Net neutrality laws are basically anti-trust laws for the internet (I am dumbing it down a little, I know, but those that know this issue don't need to read this far anyway).

Why are they creating laws for a problem that doesn't exist? No ISP is going to do this for the simple reason that they'll lose money.

Umm... they've already been caught doing it.

Even look at markets that are highly open and competitive, when there are profits to be made off the backs of the consumer, they run with it. Take the airline industry, for example, there are only 1-2 carriers who don't charge for the first checked bag, but they only service limited markets. Now expand that to regional/city-wide monopolies like the ISPs where your options are further limited. The government, and your tax dollars, already funded most of the infrastructure for these ISPs and now they want to tell you what you can and cannot watch on the Internet. Ridiculous.

Definitely good points Concerned, BA, and Apples. I'm sure I take it for granted that many places have only 1 broadband option, I must be lucky here. Anyway, I was under the impression that the FCC has the ability to take action on this sort of thing as it is - didn't they already come down on Comcast for the BitTorrent traffic shaping? I'm just concerned with the possibility of giving the govt more power to pry into our lives when (if?) they already have the means to prevent this sort of thing.

Yep. Like Haiku, I have a knack for keeping it simple. Tellin' it like it is...

where did McCain get a dog in this latest debate?

I have a feeling that Comcast et al. provided one for him. ;-)

where did McCain get a dog in this latest debate?

From a telecommunications lobbyist. Possibly a blonde.

McCain is on Twitter.

I find this hilarious because back during the campaign he would drum up sympathy by saying that his injuries from Vietnam make it impossible to use a computer.

I found this curious since Stephen Hawking uses one, and seems to be in a bit worse shape.

I guess McCain has had a dexterity breakthrough brought about by getting his ass trounced on election day.

Bluekilgoretrout-

Considering that Hawking is an idol of mine(and McCain clearly isn't), this sip of coffee's for you! Cheers!

That well reasoned defense really comes down to one thing. It believes that data nondiscrimination will lead to less innovation. This however assumes that there has been no innovation to date.

Net Neutrality is not new. It has been around basically since the internet's inception, being upheld by various courts (including the Bell Anti-Trust case). It is only since the 2005 decision in NCTA v. Brand X that we have had to worry about its existence.

Advocates of Network Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are preserving tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that ensure Internet freedom.

It was unnecessary a few years ago, yes. Not anymore.

The linked article dated back from 2007 hasn't kept up with the advance of technology and venture capital. They use the analogy of remote Medical, using telepresense which should have priority traffic flow over say, blogging or watching a streaming movie.

What the article (along with the current Telecom providers) doesn't mention or discuss is how much of the (so called) non essential traffic has already been put onto networks created by those providers. Google, Microsoft and many other "non-essential bandwidth hogs" have built out segments of network, built and distributed datacenters close to the high traffic areas and that the (AT&T, Verizon, et) tier 1 networks have been seeing a decline in traffic flow from Google queries, et.

AT&T and Verizon would have you and congress believe that the are solely responsible for the internet, that they are the gate keepers and that they should have the right to manage traffic flow based on their own criteria.
First, they position themselves rightfully as pseudo monopolies, but don't provide the truth about the workings of the internet and other providers role and responsibilities. Other countries use open-broadband-access policy letting competitors use the wires currently in place to the home of business, the result is that user costs are lower and speeds are higher. The role of the broadband provider is just that, they provide a connection to the internet and don't play traffic cop or moral arbitrator over the type of applications or services.
What is also left out of the discussion by the telecoms is Internet 2.0 (the infrastructure/pipes) (not to be confused with Web 2.0 - which is applications and services). Those research institutes that hope to do remote telepresense and need priority traffic flow, probably already have it on their own network which is far superior to what you and I have access to. Again, there's been a lot that's happened since your linked article in just the past few years. This doesn't even go into detail about new network appliances, switches, routers that can double their current bandwidth capacity. The telecoms are playing on congress based on old statistics and business models.

Net Neutrality isn't about stopping people from having free speech or expression. It's just the opposite. It means the Telecoms can't downgrade, block or charge people more for the content they access or provide.

It's frustrating that politician's that don't understand the topic have added "the fairness doctrine" to this debate. This isn't about forcing equal viewpoints, this is about technology, content providers and subscribers having access on an equal network playing field, where telecoms can't block or downgrade connection arbitrarily (without full disclosure and rules on how - which is what Comcast ran into a few years back). This is not about forcing opposing political viewpoints from websites. That's politic's not technology.

You're welcome

My position is held in a newsgroup and the linked articles I've added there.

Feel free to browse it without bit discrimination ;)

A summary of my position is pretty straight forward.

I believe in capitalism and free-markets.

Innovation happens at the edge. Products like NetFlix streaming, online banking, subscribing to the wall street journal online edition, et. are examples of that innovation and venture capital, creating jobs, paying taxes, adding to the nations economy.

I believe that broadband providers should perform one role, that of providing a connection to the internet.

I believe that companies like Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and others have a conflict of interest which reaches the level of corporatism - my definition meaning they want regulation that allows them NOT to compete. These companies want to provide content and the connection - that is the conflict of interest. They want to prioritize their bits over a competitors bits.
This is why I strongly support Open Broadband Access - letting competing broadband providers use the wires to our homes and business. Those providers understand their role - that they provide a connection - not content.

It is my view that broadband providers today are a monopoly. Consider how many choices you have at your home or business for getting an internet connection? Two, maybe three providers, a cable, DSL or WiFi connection. That to me is a monopoly and must change. Too much control, too much power in the hands of too few providers.

- Innovation at the edge is worth trillions to venture capital, businesses and users.
- Regulating network policies to help broadband providers maintain their monopolies and conflict of interest only helps them. I choose us... their model is corporatism.

for PDF of bill: http://markey.house.gov/images/PDFs/netneutralitybill.pdf

also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality - for lots of info.

That's the "internet freedom preservation act", not the "internet freedom act", and wasn't introduced by John Mccain...so either the articles all over the internet today have a pretty serious set of typos, or there is a different bill being brought up since yesterday.

THAT bill I read when it was introduced in July...it's hardly new...

Ah, no worries. I imagine it just hasn't actually surfaced in full yet, I'll give it a couple days to hit THOMAS and/or opencongress. Kinda annoying (and yet not terribly surprising) that so many articles have popped up SLAMMING it, with (so it would seem) not much information about the actual bill in question having come out yet...unless they just aren't sharing, which is possible (and even more annoying, heh).

Found it! It can be read in full right here. It's only one page...it's actually extremely strait-forward, though it also sounds kinda pointless.

Basically it says "the FCC cannot regulate the internet, period....except in the case of this pile of exceptions that include basically anything the government deems necessary or useful, or that helps law enforcement on any level do anything they want with it"...which makes it a pretty crappy "anti-regulation" bill.