RSSSenate GOP: FCC's net neutrality 'will limit the freedom of the Internet'
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 14, 2009, 5:40 PM
Using the strongest language to date in firing a shot across the bow against unchallenged regulation of the broadband access market, a group of 18 Senate Republicans led by Sam Brownback (R - Kan.) sent Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski a letter yesterday, signaling their intention to oppose any efforts by the FCC to create new restrictions on broadband Internet access suppliers, without clear case studies proving such restrictions are necessary.
"We fear that the proposals you announced during your September 21, 2009 speech will be counterproductive," wrote Brownback and his colleagues, "and risk harming the great advancements in broadband speed and deployment that we have witnessed in recent years, and will limit the freedom of the Internet." (PDF available here, from the Washington Post.)
Brownback's words appear to echo -- only with greater volume -- the case made by House Republicans in their own letter to the Chairman last week. The case that Republicans in Congress have been making since the installment of a new administration is that no commission should impose unilateral regulations on markets without clear proof that such regulations are necessary -- specifically, that players in those markets are acting unfairly, and that consumers are harmed in the process.
Last month, in a landmark speech, Chairman Genachowski proposed the addition of two "Freedoms" in the communications industry worth protecting, to the "Four Freedoms" originally proposed by former Chairman Michael Powell. The "Fifth Principle," as Genachowski called it, would prevent ISPs from utilizing content-based means to restrict consumers' access to Internet content, or conversely to clear the way for less restricted bandwidth to be made accessible for a premium to content providers. On principle, as it were, Republicans in Congress are opposed to the Fifth Principle because it would eliminate the incentives provided in legislation dating back to 2005, for the creation of a nationwide licensing program for broadband services, supplementing the municipal and statewide licenses that currently exist.
But there's another reason: By deferring the matter of mandating net neutrality to the FCC -- an agency of the executive branch of government -- Senate Democrats pave the way for communications industry matters to be fast-tracked to a committee where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 2. Despite the biggest Democratic majority in years in the Senate, filibusters are still feasible, at least in theory.
Yet even when filibusters can't overcome a 3-2 vote of the FCC, Senate Republicans may still have a hand to play, as Sen. Brownback directly implied, more than once. Broadband providers have been seen as siding with Republicans since before the net neutrality debate began. If Genachowski were to pass his Fifth and Sixth Principles without debate, Brownback intimated, certain faucets of investment might be turned down a few notches.
"Broadband service providers have invested billions of dollars in building and upgrading their networks to better serve their customers," the senators write. "However, burdensome regulations will have a chilling effect on further private sector investment, at a time when the US economy can least afford such an impact. It is because of significant competition among broadband service providers that consumers have more choices and are enjoying the best online experience that has ever been available...Market-based solutions and competition is working [sic]."
Among the other leading Senate Republicans signing Brownback's letter were Chuck Grassley (R - Iowa), former Presidential candidate John McCain (R - Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R - SC), Tom Coburn (R - Okla.), and Saxby Chambliss (R - Geo.)
After the FCC issued a ruling last February against Comcast, saying it was wrong for the leading cable ISP to throttle traffic based on BitTorrent-related sampling, it was Sen. Brownback who issued one of the strongest comments in opposition to the ruling: "There has been no market failure to justify the heavy-hand of so-called net neutrality," the senator said (emphasis ours), "and I do not believe the Commission has the authority to enforce principles as if they were adopted rules. The Bush Administration has made deregulation of the Internet and the telecommunications sector a priority; today's move was a giant step backward and may harm innovation and broadband deployment. Competitive markets, not the government, should decide which business model best suits the industry."
anyone have a link to a site which show the money bribed, i mean contributed by the telcos/cable to these corrupt, war mongering Republicans?
Score: -1
|Clearly, only the extremely intelligent see the future solution for this problem WHICH WILL OBVIOUSLY BE IMPLEMENTED: DUAL MODE OF OPERATION.
You start out by allocating, say, 80% of bandwidth to "network neutral traffic" -- in other words you're not allowed to lower the rate based on PROTOCOL, but you ARE allowed to lower the rate based on AMOUNT TRANSFERRED IN SOME PERIOD OF TIME (past hour, past day, past week, past month, whatever). That will encourage VoIP, video conferences, and other highly useful BUSINESS technologies to EXPAND without risk of getting damaged by less-critical technologies used mostly to pirate stuff. The pirates can do their stuff over night... The families who watch streaming movies all day long will have to cut back or do their own prioritization -- do we wanna watch 5 movies a day (entire family), or do we wanna have videoconference with friends/family around the world all day... These all COST NETWORK-NEUTRAL BANDWITCH.
The remaining 20% you allocate for bidding away. Some guy needs to restore his office backup RIGHT NOW from some cloud service, he wants to pay $50 to get his few dozen GB's moved over within ONE HOUR (let's say). I see no reason whatsoever why "network neutrality" should prevent him from doing so, while the ISPs would love to give him that option. Some business isn't happy with network-neutral bandwidth at 2pm when everyone wants to do video conference. They are WILLING to pay more at 2pm to get more reliable connectivity. NO REASON WHATSOEVER not to give that option.
The only trick will be FIGURING OUT THE RATIO. It'll be a dynamic thing. You keep monitoring consumer vs business needs and adjust the neutral/bidded bandwidth accordingly.
As I've said, this will have to happen to satisfy everyone's needs as much as possible AND to push all kinds of technologies -- those that work better on cheap leftover bandwidth, and those that work best on premium guaranteed bandwidth...
Score: -2
|What really worries me is that this guys can actually convince people that net neutrality is bad for the economy and for people.
This guys are literaly following interest groups. We have to realize that today's Internet is different from 20 years ago.
20 years ago there was no interest from teleco companies to use unethical business practices towards their customers.
20 years ago ISPs didn't use traffic shapping to limit our connection speed based on what we were doing. They didn't charge you more
based on what you were doing. They didn't limit you what applications you could use based on platform you were on like their doing with the iPHone today. And it was exactly due to this openess that the market expanded. Once you start creating barriers and use your own weight to close the markets around you, competition dies out and ends up being bad for the economy.IF say a company like AT&T is able to sign exclusivity contracts on a given mobile phone and is able to limit the internet applications you can run what they're doing is creating a monopoly on that platform.
Or a better example.
Anyone thinks it is good for the economy for an ISP to be able to charge you a premium to access different types of content such as video and audio from networks they don't own?
For instance is it ethical for an AT&T client to be charged a premium for watching Youtube movies?
This is what is really in the table. And that's why regulation is being considered. Because teleco companies are building this business models that are only good for them and not for the economy overall.
Score: -1
|Uh...
"20 years ago there was no interest from teleco companies to use unethical business practices"
Ma Bell ring a bell?
"20 years ago ... They didn't charge you more based on what you were doing."
Um....business vs. residential?
"They didn't limit you what applications you could use based on platform you were on like their doing with the iPHone today. "
Server vs. desktop (business vs residential...again)
"And it was exactly due to this openess that the market expanded. "
The market has stopped expanding????
"IF say a company like AT&T is able to sign exclusivity contracts on a given mobile phone and is able to limit the internet applications you can run what they're doing is creating a monopoly on that platform."
AT&T hardly has a monopoly on the pseudo-smartphone market. Hell, they don't even *make* cell-phones. Hell, they don't even have a monopoly on cell coverage.
"Anyone thinks it is good for the economy for an ISP to be able to charge you a premium to access different types of content such as video and audio from networks they don't own?"
...but from access points they do own and on networks they are *required* to manage?
"For instance is it ethical for an AT&T client to be charged a premium for watching Youtube movies?"
Of course not. Is it ethical for AT&T to offer an SLA to folks who want some guarantee as to the priority of their VoIP and VoD applications? Sure. Can the folks who don't pay for the SLA expect stutters, delays, and *zero* prioritization of their bandwidth? You bet.
Have you considered any of the issues involved here from anything but the standpoint of "I want more for less"? Doesn't appear so...
Score: 1
|Tool.....
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Score: -4
|How original...
If you cannot see that for the absolute BS that it is, there is no help for you.
Score: 1
|I want less government intrusion, whether bad or good I want less.
Score: 3
|http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Score: -3
|GOP and freedom of choice is an oxymoron. The GOP will always side with their corporate masters.
Score: -2
|Have you been paying attention to what the Left in the United States has been doing over the past 12 months?
Score: -1
|Freedom of choice only applies to democrats (who've obviously never taken a *dime* from Big Business, right?) and low-skilled employees, I take it?
What about my freedom of choice? Why should I not have the freedom to choose what regions I will do business in, what prices I charge, and how I manage the services I provide? How am I stepping on the rights of others by exercising my freedom of choice in these matters (the only legal reason the gov has to limit my freedoms)?
You keep parroting the same anti-corporate BS, but never get any deeper into the argument than posting the generalized rhetoric crap you always do.
How is one person's rights more important than another's? Do we not have the right to do business in what ways we see fit so long as we are not violating the rights of others in the process? I could have sworn this was a free country...
Score: -1
|BTW, tool.....
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Score: -4
|Yes, arossetti, trying to save your country from itself...... You're your own worse enemy. What all of your enemies couldn't do the right-wing has done. You don't (Most likely won't) realize just how much the GOP has screwed the USA over in the name of profit.
Score: -3
|...as I would expect...
Copy and Paste, no arguments, no debate. You've got what? Nothing but someone else's rhetoric that couldn't stand up to even a 3rd grader's scrutiny.
Score: 0
|In markets where people have a choice on provider, I agree with Comcasts right to throttle their service (though I think it will cause customer migration). If there is no competition available though that is where it gets to be an issue.
Score: 0
|I don't think there is any competition for cable providers. I've lived in several different areas in large cities and there is never more than one cable provider. FiOS, the only real competitor, seems to be decades away from being widespread.
Score: 0
|daq - I live in a medium sized midwest town (Cedar Rapids, IA) and I have three options for cable TV - Mediacom, ImOn, and Southslope. All of them provide broadband internet as well. There are also the following choices for broadband internet access:
- Qwest DSL (1.5, 3, 7 Mbps, with "soon to come" (i.e. 2 years) 10, 15, and 20 Mbps fiber)
- I can't remember the name, but they offer wireless broadband via repeater towers
- DirecTV / Dish
- Any of the various cell phone companies
So, as far as cable TV options, we have three, but satellite beats them anyway.
And as far as broadband options, I have 8-10 if you count satellite and cell phone, and 5 if you don't. And this market isn't large by any means.
As far as I'm concerned, the government is already into or seeking to be into too many aspects of my life. I'd like them to stay the heck away from my internet.
Score: 0
|As long as ISP's (cable, dsl, mobile, etc) are involved they will always be against this mainly because they will have to improve the very poor quality of broadband within the US. Of course lets not forget that 5 letter word: GREED. Our speeds and limits with in US is on a downward sloop plus they want to tier all users so that mteans again more money. If the survey shows 5% are using all the broadband go after the 5% and not punish the entire customer base. If industry want their own base than create a special tier base for them on completely separate lines. I am tired of doing just critical updates and being slowed down or stopped in the middle of the download or updating needed security programs. I applied for an upper tier and still get stopped or slowed down. Hate to say this but every month lately my fees are going up, not much but they are going up without an explanation of why. It is almost getting bad as ther auto insurance industry. They do need to regulate something or soon broadband will cost more than a high a/c electric billing in the desert. Except for going digital I have not seen 1 iota of improvement in computer broadband in the last 5 years but the prices continuously raise and then I read the companies are complaining people are using to much broadband, well improve your service transmission and that would end that.
Score: 1
|