Obama’s FCC to enforce ‘net neutrality’

[babylonsister]

Obama’s FCC to enforce ‘net neutrality’
By Kevin Bogardus and Kim Hart
Posted: 08/25/09 02:17 PM


The Obama administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to keep the Internet free of increased user fees based on heavy Web traffic and slow downloads.

Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, told The Hill that his agency will support “net neutrality” and go after anyone who violates its tenets.

“One thing I would say so that there is no confusion out there is that this FCC will support net neutrality and will enforce any violation of net neutrality principles,” Genachowski said when asked what he could do in his position to keep the Internet fair, free and open to all Americans.

The statement by Genachowski comes as the commission remains locked in litigation with Comcast. The cable provider is appealing a court decision by challenging the FCC’s authority to penalize the company for limiting Web traffic to its consumers.

The FCC chairman, only in the job for roughly two months, said the commission’s general counsel is working on the best legal strategy to defend its open Internet principles. In 2008, then-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a Republican, joined with the commission’s two Democrats in voting to penalize Comcast for limiting Web traffic related to the file-sharing program BitTorrent, which the company is challenging in federal court.

Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of President Barack Obama's and a fundraiser for his 2008 campaign, has been a big supporter of net neutrality. An Internet venture capitalist, he helped write the campaign’s tech policy as an adviser, which included solid support of such principles.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-fcc-to-enforce-net-neutrality-2009-08-25.html

[annabanana]

1. This is good to hear!. . . n/t

[Hutzpa]

2. This.is.how.we.do.it n/t

[redqueen]

3. OMG... it actually says "Obama's" about something positive.

I think I might faint.

[Lorax7844]

4. Yay people taking NN seriously!

Bravo, this is a big deal.

[Lorax7844]

5. K&R

[Cha]

10. Yeah, "people" as in this Obama

admin.

[babylonsister]

6. I know. The Hill isn't known for crediting the prez with anything. nt

[rhett o rick]

7. rec 22. Great news. nm

[Aramchek]

8. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

something that really has implications here on the Web

[boppers]

9. Good luck with that.

It's only a matter of time before shady companies start suing for virus prevention and spam rejection measures...

"Hey, you're blocking my Money Making System email from delivering a thousand messages a second!"

*shrug*, I guess we'll wind up going back to the telecom model of the internet, where a cable modem 4Mbs link will cost $4-5,000 a month because companies will *have* to provide adequate, unshaped, unmolested, bandwidth?

[babylonsister]

12. And you know anything about the future how? Keep your b.s. to

yourself, please.

[boppers]

14. It's not the future, it's the present.

In the telecom world, everything was regulated to make sure people weren't ripping others off. Selling 1.544 Mbs had to provide *exactly* that. Cost about $1,500 a month for a T-1, they wouldn't dare give you any less, because of regulations and fines, and had to spend tons of money on some of the best equipment and staff money could buy.

Over in the internet side of things, however, since the networks were private, they were allowed to sell 10-20 times the amount of bandwidth that they had, with the assumption that nobody was using it all the time, and certainly nobody was paying for the cost of full time use.

So, in the recent lawsuits, the spammers usually lost, because ISP's weren't obliged to carry all possible traffic from their users, an ISP only was required to handle the traffic they wanted to carry, and were allowed to carry less, or more, if they wanted to. They weren't required to be "neutral".

[Jim Sagle]

20. Don't waste your keystrokes on this jag.

He's a rabid corporatist and a militant free trade purist.

[boppers]

29. Nice personal attack.

I've actually managed networks of 6+ million active online users. Have you?

Having knowledge of a topic can come in handy.

Oh, and most corporations are on the side of NN, so it would be more like.... phones and email.

Since I'm sure you've never gotten annoying calls from telemarketers, or junk mail, I can understand why you might be in favor of getting such things over the internet, instead, to fill the void.

[babylonsister]

15. OK, you know more about this than I do. But it's a good thing

someone is aware of what's going on and intends to put the kibosh on it. Jeeze, another big fight in the future?

[boppers]

17. It's kind of been a big fight for years.

It pops up every so often on the public radar, when the less technical folks decide to "regulate" one way or another (such as Stevens and his "tubes"). For the most part, the existing informal guilds and cabals (TINC) have managed to sort things out...

But I've only dusted upon the issues involved. "Making the internet fair" is a tad like "making health care fair". Massive issue, many angles, details, ideas, solutions, all getting wrapped into two word slogans.

[redqueen]

21. Just because it doesn't solve every problem

doesn't mean it's not a positive and necessary step.

[boppers]

22. Without understanding the problem...

A "solution" doesn't make sense.

Take the article, for example. It talks about Comcast slowing "web traffic", when Comcast never did anything of the sort. Comcast was slowing down BitTorrent traffic (ports 6881-6999), not web traffic (ports 80 and 443).

They're two totally different things, but technical illiterates are writing articles, forming opinions, and making noise about things they don't understand. They're regulating gasoline to reduce drunk driving, because both involve cars.

[redqueen]

24. So Net Neutrality doesn't help at all?

Is that your contention?

[boppers]

28. Net Neutrality is "good intentions".

It sounds great on paper. Kind of like CAN-SPAM, or SarbOx.

In actual implementation, regulations, and enforcement, it's a nightmare. Kind of like CAN-SPAM, or SarbOx.

The net effect is that Internet access will be more expensive, more dangerous, and slower.

A metaphor: Lets say they you own a Hotel. Because of racism practiced by some Hotels, "Hotel Neutrality" laws are passed, where you cannot deny anybody a room, for any reason. You have to be neutral.

If somebody wants to rent a room, and store rotting deer carcasses on the bed, you have to rent them a room.
If somebody wants to rent a room, and cook meth, you have to rent them a room.
If somebody wants to rent a room, and they are a known pedophile, with a scared, small, child, in tow, you have to rent them a room.
If somebody wants to rent a room, and they start bringing in barrels of fuel oil and sacks of nitrogen fertilizer, you have to rent them a room.

Seeing the problem, here?


edit:typo

[redqueen]

31. I do, yes.

I have to wonder though, where are all the experts on this?

Seems to me that many of them have been championing NN... so... where are the rest of them?

[redqueen]

33. Well? Can you refer to any experts who agree with you?

Please?

[cui bono]

26. nevermind

[santamargarita]

11. I sure needed some good news today

:bounce:

[SpartanDem]

13. K&R

[onestepforward]

16. K&R

[Political Heretic]

18. That is great news! I'm delighted to hear it.

[Political Heretic]

19. And... K&R

[autorank]

23. PLUS A BIG 1 k*r n/t

[Prism]

25. Excellent

Thumbs up for the administration on this issue.

[pleah]

27. K&R

[Odin2005]

30. YES!!!

:woohoo:

[Milspec]

32. K & R

:)